LRASM sensor production 2017

F-35 Armament, fuel tanks, internal and external hardpoints, loadouts, and other stores.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline
User avatar

neptune

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2885
  • Joined: 24 Oct 2008, 00:03
  • Location: Houston

Unread post02 Nov 2017, 05:47

http://www.baesystems.com/en-us/article ... ion-begins

Long range anti-ship missile sensor production begins

Nov 1 2017

Production has started on sensor technology for next-generation, precision-guided stealth missiles
BAE Systems has begun production of its sensor technology for the Long Range Anti-Ship Missile (LRASM) following a $40 million order from prime contractor Lockheed Martin. The sensor enables the missile to seek and attack specific high-threat maritime targets within groups of ships, including those protected by sophisticated anti-aircraft systems. The missile’s range, survivability, and lethality capabilities are designed to help warfighters more effectively conduct missions in denied environments from beyond the reach of return fire ― meeting a pressing need for both the U.S. Navy and U.S. Air Force. LRASM is a next-generation, precision-guided stealth missile capable of semi-autonomously detecting and identifying targeted enemy ships. The precision routing and guidance technology of the sensor ― which doesn’t rely exclusively on intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance systems, networking links, or GPS navigation ― enables the missile to operate effectively in contested domains and all weather conditions, day or night. “The production of our advanced sensor for LRASM is a testament to the strength of our technology and our ability to transition the capability from airframes to missiles,” said Joseph Mancini, LRASM program manager at BAE Systems. “Precision guidance and advanced electronics are areas where we have leading capabilities, and where we can provide warfighters with an advantage on the battlefield.” BAE Systems’ advanced mid-course sensor technology incorporates the company’s software and hardware capabilities designed for the world’s leading electronic warfare aircraft platforms. The sensor system also represents the company’s approach to bringing precision guidance to small platforms and builds on the company’s expertise in signal processing and target detection and location. As part of BAE Systems’ close work with LRASM prime contractor Lockheed Martin, the company provided the sensor technology that supported a recent successful demonstration of the anti-ship missile. The launch demonstrates LRASM’s ability to address the Navy's need for versatile, multi-platform precision munitions that enable distributed operations. Work on the sensor technology will be conducted at BAE Systems’ facilities in Nashua, New Hampshire and Wayne, New Jersey.

....now with this sensor in production, LRASM can be certified for the SBUG and the Bone. Similar to the JASSM-ER which is certified for the F-16 and F-18 both of which are to be replaced by the F-35A/B/C. This is a great step forward to support the implementation of UAI weapons systems of both the 4+/ 5 Gen US a/c.
:)
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23285
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post13 Dec 2017, 07:17

Navy completes LRASM milestone test event
12 Dec 2017 PEO(U&W) Public Affairs

"Point Mugu Sea Test Range, Calif. – The U.S. Navy is closer to delivering its new Long Range Anti-Ship Missile (LRASM) after completing another milestone test flight from an Air Force B-1B Lancer Dec. 8 over Point Mugu Sea Test Range in California. During the test, aircrew aboard the B-1B simultaneously launched two missiles against multiple moving maritime targets for the first time....

...Early operational capability for the LRASM is slated for 2018 on the U.S. Air Force B-1 Lancer and 2019 on the U.S. Navy F/A-18E/F Super Hornet."

Source: http://www.navair.navy.mil/index.cfm?fu ... ry&id=6709
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline
User avatar

element1loop

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1343
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2015, 05:35
  • Location: Australia

Unread post28 Sep 2019, 07:05

USAF aims to double long-term JASSM production up to 10,000 units

27 September, 2019

SOURCE: FlightGlobal.com

BY: Garrett Reim Los Angeles

The US Department of Defense (DoD) is increasing potential long-term production quantities of Lockheed Martin Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missiles (JASSM) from a possible maximum of 4,900 to a possible maximum of 10,000. The US Air Force (USAF) Material Command signaled its intention to increase missile production in a 27 September notice that seeks production sources. Acquisition regulations require the service to seek alternative sources even though Lockheed Martin is the only producer.

The USAF also seeks to increase quantities of Lockheed Martin-made Long Range Anti-Ship Missiles (LRASM) from a possible maximum of 110 to a possible maximum of 400, says the notice. LRASM is based on the extended range version of JASSM (JASSM-ER), which has a range of more than 500nm (926km). LRASM is a joint development effort of the USAF and the US Navy.

Image
Boeing B-1B launching Lockheed Martin JASSM
Lockheed Martin

Image

... The building construction is scheduled for completion in 2021, with JASSM-ER production ramping up in the second half of 2022, the company says.

The USAF’s previous JASSM production notice for lot 17 asked for 360 missiles in 2018. That makes this most-recent source-sought announcement the largest intended acquisition of JASSM. The USAF says it wants up to 390 JASSM-ERs in lot 18; then 360 JASSM-ERs and 40 JASSM missiles in lot 19. Production would reach a maximum rate of 550 units per lot continuing through lot 30, the service says.

LRASM production also continues to ramp up from lot 1 production in 2017, which called for 23 missiles. The USAF says it wants 50 LRASM missiles in lot four, reaching a maximum rate of 96 per lot, continuing through lot eight.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... to-461148/
Accel + Alt + VLO + DAS + MDF + Radial Distance = LIFE . . . Always choose Stealth
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3440
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post28 Sep 2019, 13:57

I understand the need for this weapon on F-16, 18, F-35's and of course B-1B's.... but B-2's?

I thought the prevailing thinking there was that it didn't need standoff weapons. In any case, I'm glad its getting it because I've long thought it's window of complete invulnerability may be closing.
Offline

wolfpak

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 116
  • Joined: 12 Jan 2014, 19:26

Unread post28 Sep 2019, 21:11

The combination of the B-2 or any stealth aircraft and the JASSM/LRASSM gives you plausible deniability for strikes at targets during peacetime especially when they're located within a country with an IADS. Think an alternate to the Bin Laden operation in 2011. It would also be useful in a strike at high noon on a bright and sunny day when you didn't want to expose the aircraft to visual targeting. The B-2 is especially useful because of its range. It and the JASSM-XR will be a great combination in the western Pacific.
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2153
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post29 Sep 2019, 12:32

mixelflick wrote:I understand the need for this weapon on F-16, 18, F-35's and of course B-1B's.... but B-2's?

I thought the prevailing thinking there was that it didn't need standoff weapons. In any case, I'm glad its getting it because I've long thought it's window of complete invulnerability may be closing.


Well, the same question that you're posting regarding the B-2 applies equally to the F-35 as well since both aircraft have similar levels of reduced RCS (stealth) with some sources even indicating that the F-35 RCS could be slightly lower than the B-2.

Anyway and on top of what wolfpak said I would say that equipping the B-2 and F-35 with the JASSM will give these aircraft one more "extra" weapon choice in which and IMO an "extra weapon" is never too much.
A 4th/4.5th gen fighter aircraft stands about as much chance against a F-35 as a guns-only Sabre has against a Viper.
Offline
User avatar

element1loop

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1343
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2015, 05:35
  • Location: Australia

Unread post29 Sep 2019, 12:55

Beats an F-117A with two LGBs.
Accel + Alt + VLO + DAS + MDF + Radial Distance = LIFE . . . Always choose Stealth
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3440
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post30 Sep 2019, 18:40

element1loop wrote:Beats an F-117A with two LGBs.


Yep. And that capability (F-117 level stealth, w/2 LGB's) has yet to be demonstrated by a rival. I don't see the J-20 being able to pull that off, much less the SU-57. It makes me wonder why these 2 are NOT capable of carrying 2, 2,000lb class weapons (or are they?), along with the requisite stealth to get in/out undetected.

They've either judged the air superiority mission to be that much more important (likely, given US dominance in the area), or they're just not there yet. On the one hand it doesn't look like the J-20's weapons bays are big enough. On the other, the SU-57's stealth doesn't sound like its up to the task.

But we will see..
Offline

marauder2048

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 787
  • Joined: 14 Mar 2012, 06:46

Unread post30 Sep 2019, 20:03

mixelflick wrote:I understand the need for this weapon on F-16, 18, F-35's and of course B-1B's.... but B-2's?

I thought the prevailing thinking there was that it didn't need standoff weapons. In any case, I'm glad its getting it because I've long thought it's window of complete invulnerability may be closing.


If you need a powered, penetrator warhead with a terminal seeker there aren't a lot of other options.
Offline
User avatar

rheonomic

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 666
  • Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 03:44

Unread post01 Oct 2019, 00:15

mixelflick wrote:I thought the prevailing thinking there was that it didn't need standoff weapons. In any case, I'm glad its getting it because I've long thought it's window of complete invulnerability may be closing.

Still gives you more range ... use the VLO to fly in further, launch JASSMs at targets that otherwise couldn't be prosecuted.
"You could do that, but it would be wrong."
Offline

wrightwing

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3266
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22

Unread post01 Oct 2019, 01:37

I'd think the benefits of a stealthy long range strike would be self-evident.
Offline

mmm

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 48
  • Joined: 30 Jul 2013, 10:58

Unread post02 Oct 2019, 10:07

Another takeaway is that USAF's taking over a good chunk of air delivered ASuW against a proper peer. To be fair Tactical air is never going to match the capacity or reach of proper land based bomber, now the traditional weak links in the kill chain are better addressed with modern ISRTA/battle network as well as increasing risk to forward deployed forces it makes a lot more sense to make the transfer. Without a clear short term follow-on(known in the public domain that is) I think this is a rather straight forward step., LRASM is here to stay.
Offline
User avatar

popcorn

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 7703
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2008, 08:55

Unread post02 Oct 2019, 11:54

mixelflick wrote:I understand the need for this weapon on F-16, 18, F-35's and of course B-1B's.... but B-2's?

I thought the prevailing thinking there was that it didn't need standoff weapons. In any case, I'm glad its getting it because I've long thought it's window of complete invulnerability may be closing.


What's not to like with a fire-and-forget strike capability against multiple dispersed targets?
"When a fifth-generation fighter meets a fourth-generation fighter—the [latter] dies,”
CSAF Gen. Mark Welsh
Offline

blain

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 157
  • Joined: 04 Apr 2017, 22:52

Unread post02 Oct 2019, 22:09

It seem the Chinese are putting a lot of effort to threaten our carriers and airbases in the first and second island chain. The A2/AD threat will force the CSG to operate further out to sea. The mobility and flexibility of the CSG are its greatest assets, but it will difficulty projecting power without adequate AR resources. The task for the US and its allies is easier than the Chinese - first, conduct sea denial, then establish control.

For the moment, bombers gives the United States an asymmetric advantage in the ability to deny the Chinese ability to conduct offensive maritime operations. A B-2 can carry 16 JASSMs/LRASMs. The B-21 likely will carry a similar load. For the cost of one Ford Class carrier you would be able to purchase two B-21 squadrons, with the ability to carry around 300 JASSMs/LRASMs in a single sortie. The unrefueled combat radius of the B-2/B-21 gives it a large number of bases to operate from and the ability to disperse and move around the theater to enhance survivability. The Taiwan Strait is only about 100 mi across, which gives the US little margin. But barring an intelligence failure or miscalculation, an invasion force will need time to load their ships, which will be difficult to do under fire.

Adding JASSMs and LRASMs should be a priority for the USAF.

Long term, the Chinese will attempt to counter bombers. I don't think counter stealth radar will be a threat. But I could see them leveraging unmanned ISR platforms and putting up a lot of them to screen their operations with fighters. The US may need to develop a long range fighter, or maybe a loyal wingman for bombers focused on counter air?
Offline

swiss

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 430
  • Joined: 10 Jan 2017, 14:43

Unread post03 Oct 2019, 15:59

Is there any news if the LRASM reach IOC on the Arleigh Burke-class? And how many units they Navy has or will have?
Next

Return to F-35 Armament, Stores and Tactics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests