Egypt to order Buyan Class corvettes in 2017

[Penguin]

These are well known facts that the Egyptian Harpoons were depleted of their land attack capacity as well as satellite guidance on the request of Usrael.. in any case Egypt got a max 30 harpoons..
I thought you knew this !

So, you have no source for this then?

May 13, 2016: 20 UGM-84L Harpoon Block II Encapsulated Missiles (submarine launch for 209s)
The proposed sale of these submarine-launched missiles will support the Egyptian Navy’s Type 209 submarines, increasing its anti-surface warfare and maritime security capabilities. Egypt already possesses Harpoon Block II missiles and will have no difficulty absorbing these additional weapons.
http://www.dsca.mil/major-arms-sales/egypt-ugm-84l-harpoon-block-ii-encapsulated-missiles

Dec. 18, 2009: 20 RGM-84L/3 HARPOON Block II Anti-Ship Cruise Missiles (ship launch)
Egypt intends to use the HARPOON missiles and launch systems on upgraded S-148 Tiger Class Patrol Boats which will assist in modernizing its fleet and consolidate the configuration of the surface-to-surface missiles within its inventory.
http://www.dsca.mil/major-arms-sales/egypt-harpoon-block-ii-anti-ship-cruise-missiles

SIPRI:
16 RGM-84 Harpoon Anti-ship missile (1983) 1984 x16 $40 m deal; for Descubierta (Abu Qir) frigates
29 RGM-84 Harpoon Anti-ship missile (1988) 1990 x29 $69 m deal; UGM-84 version for modernized Romeo submarines
29 RGM-84 Harpoon Anti-ship missile (1990) 1992-1997 x29 UGM-84 version for modernized Romeo Class submarines
20 RGM-84 Harpoon Anti-ship missile (1991) 1992-1993 x20
32 RGM-84 Harpoon Anti-ship missile (1994) 1994 x32 For Knox (Damyat) frigates
32 RGM-84 Harpoon Anti-ship missile (1997) 2000-2001 x32 $51 m deal; AGM-84 version for F-16 aircraft
42 RGM-84 Harpoon Anti-ship missile (1998) 2000-2002 x42
25 RGM-84L Harpoon-2 Anti-ship MI/SSM (2003) 2013-2015 x25 RGM-84L-4 version; land-attack capability removed before delivery after Israeli pressure; for Ambassador-4 FAC
20 RGM-84L Harpoon-2 Anti-ship MI/SSM (2016) x20 UGM-84L version
http://armstrade.sipri.org/armstrade/page/trade_register.php

So, there is some inconsistency...

The L was delivered to Pakistan, unmodified. 400 L's to Saudi Arabia and to be included on their new four LCS variant ships, the MMSC (as if that wouldn't pose a threat to Israel....)
http://dsca.mil/major-arms-sales/saudi-arabia-various-munitions-and-support
http://dsca.mil/major-arms-sales/kingdom-saudi-arabia-multi-mission-surface-combatant-mmsc-ships

As for the Sonar, the Buyan-M the Russian version has already one..

No, it doesn't, at least not for ASW. Nor does it have any ASW weapons. It does have the Anapa-M underwater anti-saboteur detection sonar

Tornado/Export-Buyan does have the Anapa-ME sonar but this is to detect divers only (i.e. while stationary e.g. in port) and is coupled to a DP-64 handgrenade launcher. It is not for detecting submarines. There are no ASW weapons.
http://www.oaoosk.ru/en/products/tornado/
http://roe.ru/eng/catalog/naval-systems/tornado/

Anapa-ME Underwater anti-saboteur detection sonar
http://roe.ru/eng/catalog/naval-systems/shipborne-electronic-systems/anapa-me/

DP-65 Small-size remotely controlled anti-saboteur system
http://roe.ru/eng/catalog/naval-systems/dp-65/

As I said that with all the Equipments for sea, air and land the price might get to half the ambassador's be it including armaments or not, because it applies to both, So the comparison is at all levels..plus the ToT possibility where Egypt can buy 4 and make another 4 or 6 in its shipyards.. which is a big plus..

How would you know how cost is relative to Ambassador class without any unit cost indicator for Buyan or Buyan-M?

As for the Missiles,you can always refer to the net..for example the Moskit is considered to be one of the best if not the best antiship missile out there..:

"It reaches a speed of Mach 3 at high altitude and Mach 2.2 at low-altitude. This speed is 4.25 to 3 times more than speed of the subsonic American Harpoon. When slower missiles, like the Harpoon or the French Exocet are used, the maximum theoretical response time for the defending ship is 120 to 150 seconds. This long response time provides time to launch countermeasures and employ jamming before deploying "hard" defense systems such as missiles and close-in weapon systems. But the high speed of the 3M82 "Mosquito" missiles reduce the maximum theoretical response time for the defending ship to 25 to 30 seconds. This short response time makes jamming and countermeasures very difficult, and firing missiles and quick-firing artillery even more difficult. The Moskit was designed to be employed against smaller NATO naval groups in the Baltic Sea (Danish and German) and the Black Sea (Turkish) and non-NATO vessels in the Pacific (Japanese, South Korean, etc.), and to defend the Russian mainland against NATO amphibious assault.[3] The missile can perform intensive anti-defense maneuvers with overloads in excess of 10g, which completed for 9 km before the target"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-270_Moskit

Moskit isn't VL launched. It is a - by now old - 4.5 ton monster missile from the early 1980s. It is now superceeded by Yakhont and the Club famility of missiles. It is not an option for Buyan, Buyan M or any variant thereof. I don't see the relevance here.

The only thing with supersonic missiles is that you need to detect and engage them farther out in order to retain the same response time. They are not invulnerable at all. Their are not so new either, having been around in Soviet service since 1975 (perhaps even before that)

Do not get me wrong on this.. we all know that the American systems are the best, but when one can get the second best at half the price, ToT and no strings attached then it is obvious that the second choice will prevail..

I don't claim US weapons are the best. I do mind claim about price, ToT and strings which are not documented.

For the Buyan version, it will be made to Egyptian specs.. so let's wait and see if it will have a helipad and VLS or not or just some of them..

If made to Egyptian specs, that will include (re)design alterations, which inevitably will drive up the unit cost. Just as it did with the Ambassador class.... See http://www.dsca.mil/major-arms-sales/egypt-fast-missile-craft
_____________________________________
Egypt Support Package for Fast Missile Craft
(Source : US Defense Security Cooperation Agency; dated Feb. 14, web-posted Feb. 22, 2002)

On 13 February, the Defense Security Cooperation Agency notified Congress of a possible Foreign Military Sale to Egypt of a support package for fast missile naval craft. The package consists of Harpoon missiles, Phalanx Close-In Weapons Systems (CIWS) and associated equipment and services.

The total value, if all options are exercised, could be as high as $255 Million.

The Government of Egypt has requested a possible sale in support of their Fast Missile Craft Program for 53 RGM-84L-4 Harpoon Block II anti-ship missiles, four PHALANX CIWS, 50,000 rounds of 20mm tungsten ammunition, four AN/SWG-1A Harpoon Shipboard Command Launch Control Systems, spare and repair parts, support equipment, publications, U.S. Government and contractor technical and logistics personnel services and other related elements of logistics support. The estimated cost is $255 million.

This proposed sale will contribute to the foreign policy and national security of the United States by helping to improve the security of a friendly country that has been and continues to be an important force for political stability and economic progress in the Middle East. This sale is consistent with these U.S. objectives and with the 1950 Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security.

The Fast Missile Craft will be acquired by direct commercial sale and notified by a separate 36(c) notification. These additional systems, which are to be installed on the Fast Missile Craft, will allow Egypt to maintain its current defensive capability. Egypt currently has CIWS and Harpoon missiles in their inventory and will have no difficulty absorbing these additional weapons systems. The proposed sale of this equipment and support will not affect the basic military balance in the region.

The principal contractors will be The Boeing Company of St. Charles, Missouri and Raytheon Company of Tucson, Arizona. There are no offset agreements proposed in connection with this potential sale.

Implementation of this proposed sale will require the assignment of four contractor representatives for the follow-on technical support services to Egypt.

There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.

This notice of a potential sale is required by law; it does not mean that the sale has been concluded.
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/8844/egypt-requests-fast-missile-boats,-harpoons-(feb.-25).html

 

[The SC]

So, you have no source for this then?

May 13, 2016: 20 UGM-84L Harpoon Block II Encapsulated Missiles (submarine launch for 209s)
The proposed sale of these submarine-launched missiles will support the Egyptian Navy’s Type 209 submarines, increasing its anti-surface warfare and maritime security capabilities. Egypt already possesses Harpoon Block II missiles and will have no difficulty absorbing these additional weapons.
http://www.dsca.mil/major-arms-sales/egypt-ugm-84l-harpoon-block-ii-encapsulated-missiles

Dec. 18, 2009: 20 RGM-84L/3 HARPOON Block II Anti-Ship Cruise Missiles (ship launch)
Egypt intends to use the HARPOON missiles and launch systems on upgraded S-148 Tiger Class Patrol Boats which will assist in modernizing its fleet and consolidate the configuration of the surface-to-surface missiles within its inventory.
http://www.dsca.mil/major-arms-sales/egypt-harpoon-block-ii-anti-ship-cruise-missiles

SIPRI:
16 RGM-84 Harpoon Anti-ship missile (1983) 1984 x16 $40 m deal; for Descubierta (Abu Qir) frigates
29 RGM-84 Harpoon Anti-ship missile (1988) 1990 x29 $69 m deal; UGM-84 version for modernized Romeo submarines
29 RGM-84 Harpoon Anti-ship missile (1990) 1992-1997 x29 UGM-84 version for modernized Romeo Class submarines
20 RGM-84 Harpoon Anti-ship missile (1991) 1992-1993 x20
32 RGM-84 Harpoon Anti-ship missile (1994) 1994 x32 For Knox (Damyat) frigates
32 RGM-84 Harpoon Anti-ship missile (1997) 2000-2001 x32 $51 m deal; AGM-84 version for F-16 aircraft
42 RGM-84 Harpoon Anti-ship missile (1998) 2000-2002 x42
25 RGM-84L Harpoon-2 Anti-ship MI/SSM (2003) 2013-2015 x25 RGM-84L-4 version; land-attack capability removed before delivery after Israeli pressure; for Ambassador-4 FAC
20 RGM-84L Harpoon-2 Anti-ship MI/SSM (2016) x20 UGM-84L version
http://armstrade.sipri.org/armstrade/page/trade_register.php

So, there is some inconsistency...

The L was delivered to Pakistan, unmodified. 400 L's to Saudi Arabia and to be included on their new four LCS variant ships, the MMSC (as if that wouldn't pose a threat to Israel....)
http://dsca.mil/major-arms-sales/saudi-arabia-various-munitions-and-support
http://dsca.mil/major-arms-sales/kingdom-saudi-arabia-multi-mission-surface-combatant-mmsc-ships


No, it doesn't, at least not for ASW. Nor does it have any ASW weapons. It does have the Anapa-M underwater anti-saboteur detection sonar

Tornado/Export-Buyan does have the Anapa-ME sonar but this is to detect divers only (i.e. while stationary e.g. in port) and is coupled to a DP-64 handgrenade launcher. It is not for detecting submarines. There are no ASW weapons.
http://www.oaoosk.ru/en/products/tornado/

Anapa-ME Underwater anti-saboteur detection sonar
http://roe.ru/eng/catalog/naval-systems/shipborne-electronic-systems/anapa-me/


How would you know how cost is relative to Ambassador class without any unit cost indicator for Buyan or Buyan-M?


Moskit isn't VL launched. It is a - by now old - 4.5 ton monster missile from the early 1980s. It is now superceeded by Yakhont and the Club famility of missiles. It is not an option for Buyan, Buyan M or any variant thereof. I don't see the relevance here.

The only thing with supersonic missiles is that you need to detect and engage them farther out in order to retain the same response time. They are not invulnerable at all. Their are not so new either, having been around in Soviet service since 1975 (perhaps even before that)


I don't claim US weapons are the best. I do mind claim about price, ToT and strings which are not documented.


If made to Egyptian specs, that will include (re)design alterations, which inevitably will drive up the unit cost. Just as it did with the Ambassador class.... See http://www.dsca.mil/major-arms-sales/egypt-fast-missile-craft
_____________________________________
Egypt Support Package for Fast Missile Craft
(Source : US Defense Security Cooperation Agency; dated Feb. 14, web-posted Feb. 22, 2002)

On 13 February, the Defense Security Cooperation Agency notified Congress of a possible Foreign Military Sale to Egypt of a support package for fast missile naval craft. The package consists of Harpoon missiles, Phalanx Close-In Weapons Systems (CIWS) and associated equipment and services.

The total value, if all options are exercised, could be as high as $255 Million.

The Government of Egypt has requested a possible sale in support of their Fast Missile Craft Program for 53 RGM-84L-4 Harpoon Block II anti-ship missiles, four PHALANX CIWS, 50,000 rounds of 20mm tungsten ammunition, four AN/SWG-1A Harpoon Shipboard Command Launch Control Systems, spare and repair parts, support equipment, publications, U.S. Government and contractor technical and logistics personnel services and other related elements of logistics support. The estimated cost is $255 million.

This proposed sale will contribute to the foreign policy and national security of the United States by helping to improve the security of a friendly country that has been and continues to be an important force for political stability and economic progress in the Middle East. This sale is consistent with these U.S. objectives and with the 1950 Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security.

The Fast Missile Craft will be acquired by direct commercial sale and notified by a separate 36(c) notification. These additional systems, which are to be installed on the Fast Missile Craft, will allow Egypt to maintain its current defensive capability. Egypt currently has CIWS and Harpoon missiles in their inventory and will have no difficulty absorbing these additional weapons systems. The proposed sale of this equipment and support will not affect the basic military balance in the region.

The principal contractors will be The Boeing Company of St. Charles, Missouri and Raytheon Company of Tucson, Arizona. There are no offset agreements proposed in connection with this potential sale.

Implementation of this proposed sale will require the assignment of four contractor representatives for the follow-on technical support services to Egypt.

There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.

This notice of a potential sale is required by law; it does not mean that the sale has been concluded.
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/8844/egypt-requests-fast-missile-boats,-harpoons-(feb.-25).html

Look back at post # 29, you'll get the sources there.. you have them and it is quite clear..that they are only surface to surface missiles..

As for the Buyan , there is not much information on the export variants nor the Egyptian specs..My guess will be the Buyan-M project 21631 variant, since it is a missile ship and Egypt needs some boats of this type to protect its economic zone where there are a lot of Gas fields..

Buyan Class is a river-sea type corvette designed by Zelenodolsk Design Bureau. The design incorporates stealth features to reduce the radar cross section. The flexible open architecture of the ships allows for modifications according to the future requirements.

Should the price be really discussed when we all know the difference between US and Russian systems prices in air, land and sea?

Russia’s Buyan-M corvettes could get Pantsir-SM air defence system

According to the Russian media outlet Izvestia, the Russian Navy’s Project 21631 Buyan-M corvettes could soon be equipped with new sensors as well as the Pantsir-SM short-range air defence system.


In terms of sensors, Izvestia claims that the Buyan-M will be equipped with an active electronically-scanned array (AESA) radar. This will be accompanied by the forthcoming Pantsir-SM surface-to-air missile (SAM) system, which is an iterative update to the Pantsir short-range SAM platform.


Notes & Comments:


According to Izvestia, the new radar will enable the Buyan-M to track targets 75 km away. So as to manage costs, the Pantsir’s missiles are not equipped with seekers of any kind. Instead, the guidance radar on the ground or onboard the ship will feed, via radio communication (i.e. data-link), with information of the target. The Pantsir currently has a range of 20 km, but the Pantsir-SM will reportedly extend this to 30 km.


The inclusion of anti-air warfare (AAW) capabilities of this nature onto the Buyan-M should fully position the platform as an effective multi-mission naval solution, especially in many developing world markets.


The Buyan-M corvette came to the fore around this time last year when the Russian Navy had deployed its Caspian Sea fleet to launch land-attack cruise missiles (LACM). At the time, the presence of a sub-1000-ton surface warship engaging in long-range strikes was surprising to observers, though it should have been expected considering that guidance aspect of LACMs is independent of the launch platform.


Izvestia’s report adds another dimension to the increasing utility to small surface warships. Besides taking on offensive mission profiles, small, stealthy, and (potentially) affordable ships could become fully capable multi-mission assets in their own right. For reference, the Israeli Sa’ar 5 corvette, which has a full load displacement of 1,275 tons, can deploy the Barak-8 medium-to-long-range SAM.


For defensively oriented – i.e. anti-access and area denial – navies, these advances in SAM and LACM technology will be of benefit as it would enable these navies to build credible offensive and defensive capabilities without having to invest in large and expensive surface warship designs.

http://quwa.org/2016/10/11/russias-buyan-m-corvettes-get-pantsir-sm-air-defence-system/

 

[Penguin]

Look back at post # 29, you'll get the sources there.. you have them and it is quite clear..that they are only surface to surface missiles..

Of course they are "only" surface to surface, that can mean ship to ship as well as ship to land (so tell us nothing, just like the links in post #29.)

If you make claims about price, yes, price needs to be discussed now.

 

[The SC]

Of course they are "only" surface to surface, that can mean ship to ship as well as ship to land (so tell us nothing, just like the links in post #29.)

If you make claims about price, yes, price needs to be discussed now.

The claim is based on the average prices of Russian systems compared to the US systems.. do not tell me that you do not know this.. I will provide you with the prices in due time.. since the Egyptian specs are not available yet.. the discussion will be based on speculations only.. I have sources I can not provide you with.. just let the specs come out and I will give you the prices.. OK friend?
And here for the sake of curiosity:

Buyan Corvette: $60 million - (based on the price of the similarly-sized Tarantul. The Buyan is not as heavily armed, but does include stealth features, so this seems a reasonable compromise cost.)

Tarantul

 

[Penguin]

Isn't it usually standard for a publicly announced military contract price for a preliminary system to include training and weapons. I think secondary contracts might even have some training because of tech improvements or changes, but I do believe they also include weapons, no?

Yeah, but one needs to check before comparing.

The claim is based on the average prices of Russian systems compared to the US systems..

Which you have the catalogue for?

do not tell me that you do not know this..

Stop doing this. It doesn't cover you.

I will provide you with the prices in due time.. since the Egyptian specs are not available yet.. the discussion will be based on speculations only.. I have sources I can not provide you with.. just let the specs come out and I will give you the prices.. OK friend?

If you don't want to go into prices you shouldn't make statements about prices.

And here for the sake of curiosity:

Buyan Corvette: $60 million - (based on the price of the similarly-sized Tarantul. The Buyan is not as heavily armed, but does include stealth features, so this seems a reasonable compromise cost.)

Assumption. It is actually more than double that (probably just the ship, excluding missiles): $140 million

Russian Navy Ordered Three More Project 21631 Buyan-M Missile Corvettes with Kalibr System

The Russian Defense Ministry and Zelenodolsk Shipyard agreed last week on new deliveries of Project 21631 (NATO reporting name: Buyan-M-class) guided missile corvettes for the Russian Navy.

Deputy Defense Minister Yuri Borisov and Director General Renat Mistakhov have signed the agreement during the Army 2016 forum. According to Borisov, the contract will be worth 27 billion rubles ($421 million).

"The 27-billion-ruble contract is long-term and is affording the company financial stability," the deputy defense minister said.

Zelenodolsk Shipyard Director General Renat Mistakhov added that the Defense Ministry had ordered three more Project 21631 ships. "Five have been delivered: three to the Caspian Flotilla and two to the Black Sea Fleet. Plans provide for four ships more, and three more have been ordered today," he said.

© Copyright 2016 TASS. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

http://www.navyrecognition.com/inde...n-m-missile-corvettes-with-kalibr-system.html

@TASS: sorry, I just copied what navyrecognition already copied.

https://archive.is/20141115161805/http://bmpd.livejournal.com/1049390.html

 

[Gomig-21]

SC, I would have to agree with Penguin on the Egyptian Harpoon. As much as I believe the Israelis would try to prevent as much as they can, it doesn't make any sense that the missile has the capability of launching off a ship with the guidance to hit another ship at sea or at harbor and not have the ability to hit land targets. A docked ship is as good as a land target that's within range.

 

[The SC]

Yeah, but one needs to check before comparing.


Which you have the catalogue for?


Stop doing this. It doesn't cover you.


If you don't want to go into prices you shouldn't make statements about prices.



Assumption. It is actually more than double that (probably just the ship, excluding missiles): $140 million

Russian Navy Ordered Three More Project 21631 Buyan-M Missile Corvettes with Kalibr System

The Russian Defense Ministry and Zelenodolsk Shipyard agreed last week on new deliveries of Project 21631 (NATO reporting name: Buyan-M-class) guided missile corvettes for the Russian Navy.

Deputy Defense Minister Yuri Borisov and Director General Renat Mistakhov have signed the agreement during the Army 2016 forum. According to Borisov, the contract will be worth 27 billion rubles ($421 million).

"The 27-billion-ruble contract is long-term and is affording the company financial stability," the deputy defense minister said.

Zelenodolsk Shipyard Director General Renat Mistakhov added that the Defense Ministry had ordered three more Project 21631 ships. "Five have been delivered: three to the Caspian Flotilla and two to the Black Sea Fleet. Plans provide for four ships more, and three more have been ordered today," he said.

© Copyright 2016 TASS. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

http://www.navyrecognition.com/inde...n-m-missile-corvettes-with-kalibr-system.html

@TASS: sorry, I just copied what navyrecognition already copied.

https://archive.is/20141115161805/http://bmpd.livejournal.com/1049390.html

So that is $421 million for 3 ships for the Russian navy, isn't that what I have told you in the beginning..that Buyan is 3 time cheaper than the Ambassador, and now you have made the effort the find it for yourself.. great.. there is no hiding.. on my part.. are you hiding now?

SC, I would have to agree with Penguin on the Egyptian Harpoon. As much as I believe the Israelis would try to prevent as much as they can, it doesn't make any sense that the missile has the capability of launching off a ship with the guidance to hit another ship at sea or at harbor and not have the ability to hit land targets. A docked ship is as good as a land target that's within range.

Believe you me the Egyptian Harpoon is without the land attack capability.. I should provide you with the reliable sources later on..but for now just meditate on the two parts highlighted in red at the in post #29..,i.e; surface-to -surface, anti-surface and maritime security!

 

[Gomig-21]

25 RGM-84L Harpoon-2 Anti-ship MI/SSM (2003) 2013-2015 x25 RGM-84L-4 version; land-attack capability removed before delivery after Israeli pressure; for Ambassador-4 FAC
http://armstrade.sipri.org/armstrade/page/trade_register.php

Well, if there is any truth to this, then @The SC was right about the lack of land attack capability on the Egyptian Ambassador Harpoons. I couldn't open the link to get the details you posted, but how is that even possible? Sensors that only detect massive hunks of floating steel & aluminum? Sensors that diffuse the missile once it flies over solid surface as opposed to water? Satellite/GPS restrictions on the software programming? Interesting.

 

[Penguin]

So that is $421 million for 3 ships for the Russian navy, isn't that what I have told you in the beginning..that Buyan is 3 time cheaper than the Ambassador, and now you have made the effort the find it for yourself.. great.. there is no hiding.. on my part.. are you hiding now?

No, you just said something about order of magnitude and couldn't produce a price quote. You then said $60million. Which is way too low. We still do not know what is included in the price quote for both type of ships, but it is certain the the quote for the Ambassador includes a lot of money for (re)design), which is not the cost of building an actual ship.

Believe you me the Egyptian Harpoon is without the land attack capability.. I should provide you with the reliable sources later on..but for now just meditate on the two parts highlighted in red at the in post #29..,i.e; surface-to -surface, anti-surface and maritime security!

Sipri states it is without. Sipri is generally reliable. I've come across other references as well. Nevetheless, it remains different to find the original source (often a mention on a website is based on other information, and it is that source that I would be most interested in, as original source)

As explained, ship-to-ship = surface to surface but also ship-to-land = surface to surface. As is land-to-ship (coastal missile battery), which also contributes to maritime security, just like the ability to attack an aggressors ships in port or it port facilities with a land attack missile. In short, it is not enough to base a conclusion on (otherwise I would have done so myself on the basis of DSCA pages)

Well, if there is any truth to this, then @The SC was right about the lack of land attack capability on the Egyptian Ambassador Harpoons. I couldn't open the link to get the details you posted, but how is that even possible? Sensors that only detect massive hunks of floating steel & aluminum? Sensors that diffuse the missile once it flies over solid surface as opposed to water? Satellite/GPS restrictions on the software programming? Interesting.

The key improvements of the Harpoon Block II over previous Block ID are obtained by incorporating the inertial measurement unit from the Joint Direct Attack Munition program, and the software, computer, Global Positioning System (GPS)/inertial navigation system and GPS antenna/receiver from the SLAM Expanded Response (SLAM-ER), an upgrade to the SLAM.

As early as 1996, McDonnell Douglas proposed the "Harpoon 2000" improvement, later evolving into the Harpoon Block II. Suggested Block II features included a GPS-aided INS, a radar seeker with improved ECCM and some SLAM hardware. The GPS/INS guidance would allow much higher precision in attacks on shore-based targets. The "Harpoon 2000"/Block II proposal was apparently not too well received by the U.S. Navy, and no development order came forward. However, Block II was developed for export as AGM/RGM-84L, q.v.. In February 2008, the designations AGM-84J and RGM-84J were retroactively allocated to Block II conversions based on the AGM-84D.

Although the GPS-equipped Harpoon Block II was not ordered by the U.S. Navy, the missile was offered for export, and eventually ordered by several contries, including Egypt, the United Arab Emirates, Taiwan, and South Korea. These export missiles are based on the RGM-84G, and designated RGM-84L.

In January 2008, the U.S. Navy awarded Boeing an SDD (System Design and Development) contract for the AGM-84M Harpoon Block III. The Block III upgrade includes the major Block II features like the GPS/INS guidance and a new seeker, and adds a two-way datalink. The datalink makes it possible to update the targeting information after launch and actively control the missile at all points of the mission. The Navy plans to acquire Block III upgrade kits for 850 Harpoon missiles, with IOC planned for 2011. The RGM-84M is the ship-launched variant of the Block III missile.

So, what it comes down to, is that the added GPS and a better INS increases precision against shore targets, which are immobile. You wouldn't need the onboard active radar seeker to home in on a target during the final stage of an attack against a moving ship.

It still seems kind of silly to deny Egypt the use of the full Block II capability and then go on to sell no less than 400 full-capability Block II missile to Saudi Arabia....

 

[Gomig-21]

So, what it comes down to, is that the added GPS and a better INS increases precision against shore targets, which are immobile. You wouldn't need the onboard active radar seeker to home in on a target during the final stage of an attack against a moving ship.

Thanks for taking the time to post and explain that. Seems counter intuitive, though, doesn't it? You would think that the final homing and guidance of a missile targeting a moving ship would need GPS updating, simply because it is moving. Whereas an immobile land target is fixed and tracked from the onset and wouldn't need any final updating or tracking? You would think a precise strike of a moving ship requires quite a bit more updating & final homing/guidance than an immobile shore or land target. Weird.

When they fit the same JDAM kits on dumb bombs and fire them off of F-15s and F-16's, they hit buildings, bunkers and hangers and all sorts of targets very easily. It's the moving pickup truck or convoy that requires quite a bit more terminal guidance. At least it seems so.

It still seems kind of silly to deny Egypt the use of the full Block II capability and then go on to sell no less than 400 full-capability Block II missile to Saudi Arabia....

Indeed, but I think the perceived threat is much greater from Egypt than from Saudi Arabia, due to the the fact that Egypt has fought 4 wars with Israel and the last one had a strong impact on Israel, not to mention the proximity of territory, of course, and what really amounts to a cold peace treaty.

Also, Egypt's US equipment purchases are based on the aid package (as you know I'm sure) and can easily be influenced and manipulated by Israel. Saudi, on the other hand pays top dollar and that influences the US and tends to cause it to override many of Israel's objection to certain arms sold to Saudi. The F-15 is the prime example. Denied to Egypt but provided in the best and largest quantities to Saudiya.

 

[The SC]

No, you just said something about order of magnitude and couldn't produce a price quote. You then said $60million. Which is way too low. We still do not know what is included in the price quote for both type of ships, but it is certain the the quote for the Ambassador includes a lot of money for (re)design), which is not the cost of building an actual ship.


Sipri states it is without. Sipri is generally reliable. I've come across other references as well. Nevetheless, it remains different to find the original source (often a mention on a website is based on other information, and it is that source that I would be most interested in, as original source)

As explained, ship-to-ship = surface to surface but also ship-to-land = surface to surface. As is land-to-ship (coastal missile battery), which also contributes to maritime security, just like the ability to attack an aggressors ships in port or it port facilities with a land attack missile. In short, it is not enough to base a conclusion on (otherwise I would have done so myself on the basis of DSCA pages)



The key improvements of the Harpoon Block II over previous Block ID are obtained by incorporating the inertial measurement unit from the Joint Direct Attack Munition program, and the software, computer, Global Positioning System (GPS)/inertial navigation system and GPS antenna/receiver from the SLAM Expanded Response (SLAM-ER), an upgrade to the SLAM.

As early as 1996, McDonnell Douglas proposed the "Harpoon 2000" improvement, later evolving into the Harpoon Block II. Suggested Block II features included a GPS-aided INS, a radar seeker with improved ECCM and some SLAM hardware. The GPS/INS guidance would allow much higher precision in attacks on shore-based targets. The "Harpoon 2000"/Block II proposal was apparently not too well received by the U.S. Navy, and no development order came forward. However, Block II was developed for export as AGM/RGM-84L, q.v.. In February 2008, the designations AGM-84J and RGM-84J were retroactively allocated to Block II conversions based on the AGM-84D.

Although the GPS-equipped Harpoon Block II was not ordered by the U.S. Navy, the missile was offered for export, and eventually ordered by several contries, including Egypt, the United Arab Emirates, Taiwan, and South Korea. These export missiles are based on the RGM-84G, and designated RGM-84L.

In January 2008, the U.S. Navy awarded Boeing an SDD (System Design and Development) contract for the AGM-84M Harpoon Block III. The Block III upgrade includes the major Block II features like the GPS/INS guidance and a new seeker, and adds a two-way datalink. The datalink makes it possible to update the targeting information after launch and actively control the missile at all points of the mission. The Navy plans to acquire Block III upgrade kits for 850 Harpoon missiles, with IOC planned for 2011. The RGM-84M is the ship-launched variant of the Block III missile.

So, what it comes down to, is that the added GPS and a better INS increases precision against shore targets, which are immobile. You wouldn't need the onboard active radar seeker to home in on a target during the final stage of an attack against a moving ship.

It still seems kind of silly to deny Egypt the use of the full Block II capability and then go on to sell no less than 400 full-capability Block II missile to Saudi Arabia....

Even if we give it double that price, i,e; $120 million fully equipped..it is still not expansive and very much worth it.. So at $200 million a piece with a lot of modifications Egypt can gets a better ship in firepower with some good technologies than the Ambassador, while the latter will keep a technological edge in some components..

Don't be surprised with what KSA gets and what Egypt can get.. the same story was seen for the Amraams-120, the F-15s, the AWACS and much more..Egypt is too close to Usrael while KSA is bit farther away..

 

[Hassan Guy]

https://www.navyrecognition.com/ind...yan-m-corvette-vyshniy-volochek-underway.html

It's a real small warship but is very well equipped. Pak needs to do the same with it's FAC(M)'s

 

[HannibalBarca]

no because we have nukes

Israel NEVER said that they HAVE nukes ... "Israel has never officially denied nor admitted to having nuclear weapons"

so till this day it's MAYBE... grow a pair of balls and say it..; after that you can bring your voice with your nukes trump card... meanwhile stop speaking about it and stay focused on WHAT you/them HAVE right now... rdy for deployement...

Have Fun

 

[MMM-E]

https://www.navyrecognition.com/ind...yan-m-corvette-vyshniy-volochek-underway.html

It's a real small warship but is very well equipped. Pak needs to do the same with it's FAC(M)'s

Turkey’s STM offers FAC-55 Missile Boat to Pakistan

FAC 55 Fast Attack Craft impresses with her warfare capabilities like the MİLGEM Corvettes

-- 75 meters
-- 535 tons
-- 55 knots
-- Stealth Design

250km SMART-S MKII 3D Radar
1 x 76 mm Oto Melera Super Rapid Gun
8 x 220+ km ATMACA Naval Strike Missiles ( anti ship / land attack capability )
21 x RAM Air Defense Missiles