LRASM sensor production 2017

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

blain

Active Member

Active Member

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

Unread post03 Oct 2019, 19:46

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


At this moment LRASM is an air launched weapon.
Offline

marauder2048

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 788
  • Joined: 14 Mar 2012, 06:46

Unread post03 Oct 2019, 23:55

mmm wrote:Another takeaway is that USAF's taking over a good chunk of air delivered ASuW against a proper peer.


Of the 400 LRASM being acquired, all of 50 rounds are heading to the Air Force.
Offline
User avatar

element1loop

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1356
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2015, 05:35
  • Location: Australia

Unread post04 Oct 2019, 09:29

blain wrote: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. .. 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. ...


As a generalisation at the middle and end of WWII in the Pacific the Navy got hammered from the air as they moved forward while heavy bombers were able to move into strike range and deliver havoc up close on a daily basis and maintain reproducible punch with no effective answers once the air was won with bombing taking its toll. That lesson holds true if a navy is not supported by a strong survivable long range air power force with the reach and load to change the nature of the most intense conventional fight.
Accel + Alt + VLO + DAS + MDF + Radial Distance = LIFE . . . Always choose Stealth
Offline

mmm

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

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

Unread post04 Oct 2019, 09:35

marauder2048 wrote:
mmm wrote:Another takeaway is that USAF's taking over a good chunk of air delivered ASuW against a proper peer.


Of the 400 LRASM being acquired, all of 50 rounds are heading to the Air Force.


Can you kindly cite the source?
Offline
User avatar

popcorn

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

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

Unread post04 Oct 2019, 12:14

element1loop wrote:As a generalisation at the middle and end of WWII in the Pacific the Navy got hammered from the air as they moved forward while heavy bombers were able to move into strike range and deliver havoc up close on a daily basis and maintain reproducible punch with no effective answers once the air was won with bombing taking its toll. That lesson holds true if a navy is not supported by a strong survivable long range air power force with the reach and load to change the nature of the most intense conventional fight.


I guess we'll just have to wait for some future major conflict to see how the Navy's CAW/AEGIS combo actually fares against a major air threat.
"When a fifth-generation fighter meets a fourth-generation fighter—the [latter] dies,”
CSAF Gen. Mark Welsh
Offline

aussiebloke

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 71
  • Joined: 07 Dec 2017, 22:29

Unread post04 Oct 2019, 13:17

mmm wrote:
marauder2048 wrote:
mmm wrote:Another takeaway is that USAF's taking over a good chunk of air delivered ASuW against a proper peer.


Of the 400 LRASM being acquired, all of 50 rounds are heading to the Air Force.


Can you kindly cite the source?


https://apps.dtic.mil/procurement/Y2020 ... B_2020.pdf

https://apps.dtic.mil/procurement/Y2020 ... B_2020.pdf
Offline

swiss

Senior member

Senior member

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

Unread post04 Oct 2019, 17:06

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


At this moment LRASM is an air launched weapon.


Thanks blain. I assume this change soon. Most Arleigh Burke have no real anti ship weapons.
Offline
User avatar

element1loop

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1356
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2015, 05:35
  • Location: Australia

Unread post04 Oct 2019, 17:34

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


At this moment LRASM is an air launched weapon.


Thanks blain. I assume this change soon. Most Arleigh Burke have no real anti ship weapons.


I wouldn't presume any are going in the VLS unless specifically stated. There's nothing in the text which says or suggests any of the naval LRASM will be VLS launched, but it does specify Superhornet as the launch platform.

Long Range Anti-Ship Missile (LRASM) is Increment 1 of the Offensive Anti-Surface Warfare (OASuW) weapon development program. LRASM will be a key air launched component of the Navy's overall Cruise Missile Strategy. The Department has transitioned the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) / Office of Naval Research (ONR) LRASM demonstration design into a fielded weapon system which supports an increased offensive strike capability with an Early Operational Capability (EOC) for U.S. Air Force B-1 and U.S. Navy F/A-18E/F. In response to U.S. Pacific Command Urgent Operation Need (UON) statement, LRASM is intended to provide the first increment of the next generation ASuW capabilities addressing the most urgent air-launched requirement, significantly reducing joint force warfighting risks, and positioning the Department to address evolving surface warfare threats. LRASM is integral to realizing the National Defense Strategy of combat-credible military forces to deter war, protect the security of our nation and to enable the Joint Force to win should deterrence fail. The development and acquisition of LRASM has been structured to be fielded at a pace relevant to maintain overmatch against long-term strategic competition. Specifically, LRASM directly contributes to building a more lethal force and is a critical enabler for joint lethality in contested environments; deterring adversaries from aggression; ensuring common domains remain open and maintaining favorable regional balances of power.


https://apps.dtic.mil/procurement/Y2020 ... B_2020.pdf

Which is consistent with reducing exposure of all ships plus passing strike effort burden from ship VLS to naval aviation pylon, which makes a lot of sense. And the (multirole) anti-ship missiles the surface fleet do have are more suited to choke-point and littoral self-defense (and NSM to complement those in future).
Accel + Alt + VLO + DAS + MDF + Radial Distance = LIFE . . . Always choose Stealth
Offline

swiss

Senior member

Senior member

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

Unread post04 Oct 2019, 21:57

element1loop wrote:I wouldn't presume any are going in the VLS unless specifically stated. There's nothing in the text which says or suggests any of the naval LRASM will be VLS launched, but it does specify Superhornet as the launch platform.

Long Range Anti-Ship Missile (LRASM) is Increment 1 of the Offensive Anti-Surface Warfare (OASuW) weapon development program. LRASM will be a key air launched component of the Navy's overall Cruise Missile Strategy. The Department has transitioned the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) / Office of Naval Research (ONR) LRASM demonstration design into a fielded weapon system which supports an increased offensive strike capability with an Early Operational Capability (EOC) for U.S. Air Force B-1 and U.S. Navy F/A-18E/F. In response to U.S. Pacific Command Urgent Operation Need (UON) statement, LRASM is intended to provide the first increment of the next generation ASuW capabilities addressing the most urgent air-launched requirement, significantly reducing joint force warfighting risks, and positioning the Department to address evolving surface warfare threats. LRASM is integral to realizing the National Defense Strategy of combat-credible military forces to deter war, protect the security of our nation and to enable the Joint Force to win should deterrence fail. The development and acquisition of LRASM has been structured to be fielded at a pace relevant to maintain overmatch against long-term strategic competition. Specifically, LRASM directly contributes to building a more lethal force and is a critical enabler for joint lethality in contested environments; deterring adversaries from aggression; ensuring common domains remain open and maintaining favorable regional balances of power.


https://apps.dtic.mil/procurement/Y2020 ... B_2020.pdf

Which is consistent with reducing exposure of all ships plus passing strike effort burden from ship VLS to naval aviation pylon, which makes a lot of sense. And the (multirole) anti-ship missiles the surface fleet do have are more suited to choke-point and littoral self-defense (and NSM to complement those in future).


You are right. The reason why i ask was this article.

http://www.deagel.com/news/First-LRASM- ... 11916.aspx
Offline

marauder2048

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 788
  • Joined: 14 Mar 2012, 06:46

Unread post05 Oct 2019, 01:08

element1loop wrote:
Which is consistent with reducing exposure of all ships plus passing strike effort burden from ship VLS to naval aviation pylon, which makes a lot of sense. And the (multirole) anti-ship missiles the surface fleet do have are more suited to choke-point and littoral self-defense (and NSM to complement those in future).



They are acquiring 1300 Maritime Strike Tomahawks (IOC FY2022). I don't think those are all destined for submarines.
Offline
User avatar

element1loop

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1356
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2015, 05:35
  • Location: Australia

Unread post05 Oct 2019, 01:37

swiss wrote:You are right. The reason why i ask was this article.

http://www.deagel.com/news/First-LRASM- ... 11916.aspx


Yeah, don't see it coming about though, appears to be a validated option but doesn't fit the need. LRASM from P-8A (I have my doubts that would go ahead) or a LO naval drone weapon bay (MQ-25 or land based Predator-C for instance) would be faster with less at stake compared to a DDG. A far higher strike and reload tempo and a bigger threat which is much harder to deal with due to their range and speed. No doubt simulation shows the many advantages of having these missiles on medium and long-range naval air power, rather than VLS in a near-peer fight.

I'd speculate this accounts for western surface fleets persisting with Harpoon and replacing those with NSM, as strike from ships at the high-end will empty magazines and weaken defenses. Cells need to be refilled in a port (leave the fight to reload with strike weapons?) and duking it out with another fleet ship-to-ship is too random, a bit like relying on IR missiles for 4th-gen WVR where mutual attrition for little advantage becomes likely.

So Harpoon for close-in lower-end threats, like a container-ship firing Yakhont, where fast SM2 may not put an end to the firing and it's not such a great idea to expend 5 to 6 SM2 on a container ship to suppress it (or for land targets in choke points). Longer range ESSM-2 provides four times the number of missiles. Plus NSM is a better support for killing all manner of targets with unannounced hits.

As I see this VLS has always been primarily about AEGIS defense, plus a secondary limited strike option bonus on Cruisers that had more VLS. Mission creep and lower threat era post cold war and Desert Storm led to DDG cells being utilised for a supplemental strike. But now VLS needs to refocus on the air threats, and for suppressing a sub fast. While LRASM has always been about killing the most high-end fleet units, and hitting the most defended naval targets at the earliest time to limit the damage those could do. Making it easier to pick off the remainder of the surface fleet with cheaper more numerous weapons. Hard to sneak up on a surface fleet to fire VLS weapons at them and not get fired at first.

This frees up more cells for a predominantly ESSM-2-based air defense on DDG, making more room for SM3, SM6 needs, and a few VL-ASROC for sub suppression.

Seems clear USAF bomber and SH are the best delivery option from here. B-1B takes out items like carriers and cruisers, SH plink DDGs with LRASM. JASSM-ER on both fleet bases and ships in port, with F-35C delivered JSOW-C1 against DDG, FFG and lower.

marauder2048 wrote:They are acquiring 1300 Maritime Strike Tomahawks (IOC FY2022). I don't think those are all destined for submarines.


Subs and cruiser VLS (prompt limited-strike missions) and reserve war-stocks could account for it though.
Accel + Alt + VLO + DAS + MDF + Radial Distance = LIFE . . . Always choose Stealth
Offline

marauder2048

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 788
  • Joined: 14 Mar 2012, 06:46

Unread post05 Oct 2019, 06:04

LRASM is strictly a war reserve asset.

Maritime Strike Tomahawk is being procured in greater quantities (375 vs. 240) than LRASM over the FYDP/total
and SM-6 Block IB's development with an emphasis on ASuW doesn't really support the suggestion
of a large offloading of ASuW to the air arm.
Offline

squirrelshoes

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 108
  • Joined: 08 Nov 2016, 23:53

Unread post06 Oct 2019, 18:39

aussiebloke wrote:https://apps.dtic.mil/procurement/Y2020/AirForce/stamped/U_P40_LRASM0_BSA-2_BA-2_APP-3020F_PB_2020.pdf

https://apps.dtic.mil/procurement/Y2020 ... B_2020.pdf

I must be missing something, how does this show USAF is only getting 50 LRASMs?

It seems to show acquisition 2017-2019 of 50 LRASMs for USAF, but the big expansion in production is 2020-2021, are they not getting any more going forward and all the rest are going to USN?
Offline

aussiebloke

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 71
  • Joined: 07 Dec 2017, 22:29

Unread post06 Oct 2019, 21:47

squirrelshoes wrote:
aussiebloke wrote:https://apps.dtic.mil/procurement/Y2020/AirForce/stamped/U_P40_LRASM0_BSA-2_BA-2_APP-3020F_PB_2020.pdf

https://apps.dtic.mil/procurement/Y2020 ... B_2020.pdf

I must be missing something, how does this show USAF is only getting 50 LRASMs?

It seems to show acquisition 2017-2019 of 50 LRASMs for USAF, but the big expansion in production is 2020-2021, are they not getting any more going forward and all the rest are going to USN?


I provided two URLs for two separate documents. It is the Air Force document that answers your question. On page 1 it shows zero procurement quantities for FY20, FY21, FY22, FY23 and FY24.

That of course might all change in the next budget.
Offline

zero-one

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2179
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2013, 16:19
  • Location: New Jersey

Unread post07 Oct 2019, 09:41


Kirov vs LRASM using CMANO simulator

Here is another less scientific test, simply spaming a ship with 80 LRASMs
PreviousNext

Return to F-35 Armament, Stores and Tactics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests