LRASM sensor production 2017

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

element1loop

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1352
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2015, 05:35
  • Location: Australia

Unread post09 Oct 2019, 18:12

mmm wrote:Penetrating, Persistent ISR supporting long haul bomber delivered LRASM is not known to exist.


I don't see why this is a problem. You're still oceanic, even if closer to China.
BAMS doesn't need to penetrate, It has high-altitude performance and expensive sensors for extra long slant ranges. The LOS horizon is at very high radius. It exists now in low numbers that will grow quickly from here, it's persistent, it's out there to find the targets and gather data, and to act as a network relay. It will support long-haul bombers very effectively, I'd say.

The other item is China can only degrade or eliminate the satellites that it can reach, or see. A lot of them will continue to operate over most of the Indo-Pacific, which is bigger than a hemisphere.They can degrade satellites close to them, but there will be so many sensors and comms relays in closer that satellite loss won't be prohibitive to bomber needs.

Lastly, OTHR first bounce regions are vast and capable of detecting and tracking ships and small craft to provide HALE BAMS and MALE supports, plus P-8A to ID what is not a valid target fairly quickly, leaving a smaller and smaller cohort that may be targets.

If in doubt send a 'cheap' MALD to check it out (cheaper than an MQ-4 that is).
Accel + Alt + VLO + DAS + MDF + Radial Distance = LIFE . . . Always choose Stealth
Offline

mmm

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

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

Unread post10 Oct 2019, 06:33

Don't mean to bash it, but BAMS has been downed by Iran before. Granted it was a less than war scenario, constricted by a number of factors, including the mission itself, limiting what kind of standoff it could have achieved, taken by a suprisingly escalatory move. Yet China have a far more diverse array of options to deny ISRTA. Sitting at a 200nm range from long range SAM is far from a given, nor does it necessarily translate into survival. Sometimes to see what you really need to(what you need to hit is not always on forward edge) , and to keep your eyes on(preparing a sortie then fly to target takes time), you have to penetrate. In ways China had it easier with ASBM. For whatever shortcomings it may have the time to target is undisputably short, in theory only a brief high quality track is sufficient. Thus afford them the option to employ relatively unsophiscated platforms, like rocket powered attritable UAS for the role.
Offline
User avatar

element1loop

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1352
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2015, 05:35
  • Location: Australia

Unread post10 Oct 2019, 07:56

mmm wrote:Don't mean to bash it, but BAMS has been downed by Iran before. Granted it was a less than war scenario, constricted by a number of factors, including the mission itself, limiting what kind of standoff it could have achieved, taken by a suprisingly escalatory move.


I was interested to see this was one of four RQ-4s used to develop MQ-4 prototypes (as I remember another crash landed). Does the air force hand over a new RQ-4, or those with less than ideal life and cycles left in them? The fact they used one of the MQ-4 prototypes, which was probably an aging RQ-4 to begin with, suggests this was selected as the more disposable airframe to put at risk in a location where a shoot-down could occur.

mmm wrote:Yet China have a far more diverse array of options to deny ISRTA. Sitting at a 200nm range from long range SAM is far from a given, nor does it necessarily translate into survival. Sometimes to see what you really need to (what you need to hit is not always on forward edge), and to keep your eyes on (preparing a sortie then fly to target takes time), you have to penetrate. In ways China had it easier with ASBM. For whatever shortcomings it may have the time to target is undisputably short, in theory only a brief high quality track is sufficient. Thus afford them the option to employ relatively unsophiscated platforms, like rocket powered attritable UAS for the role.


You may be underestimating the distance to the radar horizon from the claimed FL560 service-ceiling of an MQ-4, it's 252 nm, or 466 km. Long-wave hydrophone triangulation plus OTHR surface correlation will give a good idea of contact search-boxes on ships and their movements. Pointing a powerful off-board-cued AESA at a large naval ship will likely get a target quality track while well outside heavy-SAM range. Increase radius and wait while B1-B launches, then close again to update location and track as B1-B reaches LRASM launch range.

If you want more MQ-4 surface scan radius add more engine-power and reduce weight (and or burn down the fuel).

Another option would be that the B1-B heads out to a long-range contact search-box, and lobs a small disposable tactical micro-satellite from a B1-B pylon, which overflies the search-box defined by the datalinked long-range sensors. As the B-1B approaches striking range the micro-sat relays precision target location and vector back to nav system in the LRASMs on the B1-B and to the wider network (this needs a passive IRST sensor with good cloud penetration performance).

Else the B1-B fires a long-range AAM on a booster (David's-Sling style) with an AESA sensor and two-way datalink at the off-board-defined search-box, and relays a PID target coordinate and vector then dives on the target ship's nerve-center for good measure to degrade SA and self-defense capabilities.

I personally think MQ-4 with the right tactics will suffice, without a need to penetrate SAM defenses. Not so much against a carrier with J-15s though.
Accel + Alt + VLO + DAS + MDF + Radial Distance = LIFE . . . Always choose Stealth
Previous

Return to F-35 Armament, Stores and Tactics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests