LRASM sensor production 2017

[element1loop]

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).

[mmm]

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.

[element1loop]

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.

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.

[spazsinbad]

Up to 200 AGM-158C, Long Range Anti-Ship Missiles (LRASMs) for RAAF at almost 1 Billion Dollars
07 Feb 2020 DSCA

"­­­WASHINGTON, February 7, 2020 - The State Department has made a determination approving a possible Foreign Military Sale to Australia of up to two hundred (200) AGM-158C, Long Range Anti-Ship Missiles (LRASMs) and related equipment for an estimated cost of $990 million. The Defense Security Cooperation Agency delivered the required certification notifying Congress of this possible sale today.

The Government of Australia has requested to buy up to two hundred (200) AGM-158C, Long Range Anti-Ship Missiles (LRASMs); and up to eleven (11) ATM-158C LRASM Telemetry Variant (Inert). Also included are DATM-158C LRASM, Captive Air Training Missiles (CATM-158C LRASM), containers, support and test equipment, publications and technical documentation, personnel training and training equipment, U.S. Government and contractor representatives technical assistance, engineering and logistics support services, and other related elements of logistics support. The total estimated cost is $990 million.

This proposed sale will support the foreign policy and national security objectives of the United States. Australia is one of our most important allies in the Western Pacific. The strategic location of this political and economic power contributes significantly to ensuring peace and economic stability in the region.

Australia intends to use the missiles on its F-18 aircraft and will provide enhanced capabilities in defense of critical sea-lanes. The proposed sale of the missiles and support will increase the Australian Navy's maritime partnership potential and align its capabilities with existing regional baselines. This is Australia's first purchase of the missiles. Australia will not have any difficulty absorbing these weapons into its armed forces...."

PDF: https://dsca.mil/sites/default/files/ma ... _20-02.pdf (27Kb)

Source: https://dsca.mil/major-arms-sales/austr ... les-lrasms

[spazsinbad]

BAE Systems to provide sensor fusion missile seekers for anti-ship missile [3 page PDF of article attached]
Jan 2021 John Keller

"...The BAE Systems LRASM seeker uses sensor fusion to blend information from the missile’s on-board radar, semi-autonomous guidance, Global Positioning System (GPS) satellite navigation, high-speed secure tactical networking links, and nearby sensors to strike high-value targets from long range while avoiding shipboard missile counter-fire.

The missile guidance sensor uses semi-autonomous guidance and target cueing data to locate and attack targets precisely and reduce reliance on airborne intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) aircraft, networking links, and GPS navigation.

BAE Systems designers also are working to make the seeker system smaller, more capable, and more efficient to produce....

...In the future LRASM also will launch from the F-35 Light[n]ing II joint strike fighter...

...LRASM is designed to detect and destroy high-priority targets within groups of ships from extended ranges in electronic warfare jamming environments. It is a precision-guided, anti-ship standoff missile based on the Lockheed Martin Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile-Extended Range (JASSM-ER).

Lockheed Martin has been designing LRASM for the last 11 years, primarily under DARPA supervision. The advanced anti-ship missile is intended to replace the ageing Harpoon anti-ship missile. It has a multimode radio frequency sensor, a new weapon data-link and altimeter, and an uprated power system.

The LRASM can be guided toward enemy ships from as far away as 200 nautical miles by its launch aircraft, can receive updates via its datalink, or can use onboard sensors to find its target. LRASM will fly towards its target at medium altitude then drop to low altitude for a sea skimming approach to counter shipboard anti-missile defenses.

The LRASM uses on-board targeting systems to acquire the target independently without the presence of intelligence or supporting services like Global Positioning System (GPS) satellite navigation and data links. Lockheed Martin is designing the missile with advanced counter-countermeasures to evade hostile active defense systems.

The Lockheed Martin LRASM has a 1,000-pound penetrator and blast-fragmentation warhead, multi-mode sensor, weapon data link, and enhanced digital anti-jam global positioning system to detect and destroy selected surface targets within groups of ships...."

Source: MILITARY & AEROSPACE ELECTRONICS Magazine JANUARY 2021

[doge]

The fact that it won't fit in the F-35's weapon bay is disappointing to me, but the fact that it will be available is great news. Carry under the wings.
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/20 ... n-on-f-35/

Lockheed Martin Progressing Towards LRASM Integration On F-35
During the Surface Navy Association (SNA) 2021 Virtual Symposium held last week, Lockheed Martin was showcasing a new artist impression showing two LRASM fitted on a F-35 Lightning II.
Xavier Vavasseur 18 Jan 2021
This image was new to us. Naval News contacted Lockheed Martin to ask about it, wondering if it meant that the company is looking to integrate the Long Range Anti-Ship Missile (LRASM) aboard the next generation fighter. Here is what a Lockheed Martin spokesperson told us:

“There is warfighter interest in both JASSM-ER and LRASM, and Lockheed Martin is working to ensure outstanding weapon standoff and effects. Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control and Lockheed Martin Aeronautics are completing key risk reduction actions in order to provide the warfighter with increased capabilities in accelerated timeframes. We are currently investing in F-35 integration efforts for JASSM-ER in areas such as the digital transformation of elements of smart factory assets. Also, initial fit checks for LRASM on the F-35 have been completed. Planned integration efforts will continue through 2021.”
Joe Monaghen, Communications Manager, Hypersonic and Strike Systems, Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control

The possible integration of LRASM aboard the F-35 was first reported by Joint Strike Fighter Program Executive Officer Vice Adm. Mat Winter in Air Force Mag back in December 2018.
For the record, Norway, Australia and Japan are already procuring the Joint Strike Missile (JSM) by Kongsberg for its fleet of F-35s. Based on the Naval Strike Missile (NSM), the JSM was specifically designed to fit internally, inside the stealth fighter’s weapons bays.
Lockheed Martin confirmed to Naval News during SNA 2021 that LRASM can not be mounted internally aboard the F-35 Lightning II aircraft: ““Due to their overall size of the missiles, both JASSM and LRASM would be external carriage only. They do not fit in the internal bay of the F-35.” Monaghen explained.
The LRASM is already integrated with the U.S. Air Force’s B-1B and U.S. Navy F/A-18 Super Hornet aircraft, and will soon be integrated with the P-8A Poseidon. It appears that the F-35 Lightning II will become the fourth aircraft able to launch the next generation anti-ship missile.

[wrightwing]

:doh: The fact that it won't fit in the F-35's weapon bay is disappointing to me, but the fact that it will be available is great news. Carry under the wings.
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/20 ... n-on-f-35/

Lockheed Martin Progressing Towards LRASM Integration On F-35
During the Surface Navy Association (SNA) 2021 Virtual Symposium held last week, Lockheed Martin was showcasing a new artist impression showing two LRASM fitted on a F-35 Lightning II.
Xavier Vavasseur 18 Jan 2021
This image was new to us. Naval News contacted Lockheed Martin to ask about it, wondering if it meant that the company is looking to integrate the Long Range Anti-Ship Missile (LRASM) aboard the next generation fighter. Here is what a Lockheed Martin spokesperson told us:

“There is warfighter interest in both JASSM-ER and LRASM, and Lockheed Martin is working to ensure outstanding weapon standoff and effects. Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control and Lockheed Martin Aeronautics are completing key risk reduction actions in order to provide the warfighter with increased capabilities in accelerated timeframes. We are currently investing in F-35 integration efforts for JASSM-ER in areas such as the digital transformation of elements of smart factory assets. Also, initial fit checks for LRASM on the F-35 have been completed. Planned integration efforts will continue through 2021.”
Joe Monaghen, Communications Manager, Hypersonic and Strike Systems, Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control

The possible integration of LRASM aboard the F-35 was first reported by Joint Strike Fighter Program Executive Officer Vice Adm. Mat Winter in Air Force Mag back in December 2018.
For the record, Norway, Australia and Japan are already procuring the Joint Strike Missile (JSM) by Kongsberg for its fleet of F-35s. Based on the Naval Strike Missile (NSM), the JSM was specifically designed to fit internally, inside the stealth fighter’s weapons bays.
Lockheed Martin confirmed to Naval News during SNA 2021 that LRASM can not be mounted internally aboard the F-35 Lightning II aircraft: ““Due to their overall size of the missiles, both JASSM and LRASM would be external carriage only. They do not fit in the internal bay of the F-35.” Monaghen explained.
The LRASM is already integrated with the U.S. Air Force’s B-1B and U.S. Navy F/A-18 Super Hornet aircraft, and will soon be integrated with the P-8A Poseidon. It appears that the F-35 Lightning II will become the fourth aircraft able to launch the next generation anti-ship missile.

There's no reason it needs to fit in the weapons bay. At the ranges it will be fired at, the F-35 will remain undetected by the intended targets.

[ricnunes]

There's no reason it needs to fit in the weapons bay. At the ranges it will be fired at, the F-35 will remain undetected by the intended targets.

Indeed.
With an estimated range of more than 560 km or 350 nautical miles and while being a stealthy missile itself the LRASM should more than grant the ability for the F-35 to fire it while remaining undetected by the enemy, despite being carried externally.

Besides there's also a similar weapon that will be available to be carried internally by the F-35 which is the JSM. (although the JSM has a smaller warhead compared to the LRASM).

[hornetfinn]

There's no reason it needs to fit in the weapons bay. At the ranges it will be fired at, the F-35 will remain undetected by the intended targets.

Definitely and the RCS (and other signatures like radio and data link comms) of the F-35 with couple of external VLO LRASM is still likely very low compared to any 4th gen aircraft even when they are totally clean. And their superior SA will still allow them to avoid any threats and getting inadvertedly inside the range where threat radars can see them.

[element1loop]

Scariest combo of platform and weapon I know of at the conventional tactical level. Perhaps a <1,000 lb JSM is on a similar sort of level.

[hornetfinn]

I find the LRASM sensor and guidance systems being really interesting and making the missile really dangerous to all targets. Having passive sensors combined with two-way data link, sensor fusion and swarm capabilities makes it really tough to defend against with countermeasures. Combine that with long range, high agility, potentially very low sea skimming flight and VLO stealth. This all makes it also very difficult to detect, track, engage and successfully shoot down. It's very likely that first warning of being under attack will be when one missile suddenly shows up in sensors very close to ship and that's likely the best case scenario. It's likely that several missiles will be used simultaneously against ships with most capable defences.

JSM is similar, only with shorter range and lesser punch, but naturally in a lot smaller package which gives it many advantages especially in coastal warfare and for smaller platforms. And it still does have very good range and no ship wants to eat <100kg warhead which arrives with centimetric accuracy.

[element1loop]

JSM is similar, only with shorter range and lesser punch, but naturally in a lot smaller package which gives it many advantages especially in coastal warfare and for smaller platforms. And it still does have very good range and no ship wants to eat <100kg warhead which arrives with centimetric accuracy.

As you say, several per ship with sub-meter aiming makes warhead size less important, although LRASM was designed to kill 'Capital' ships. JSM is land-attack too, so a good complementary mix.

[ricnunes]

JSM is similar, only with shorter range and lesser punch, but naturally in a lot smaller package which gives it many advantages especially in coastal warfare and for smaller platforms. And it still does have very good range and no ship wants to eat <100kg warhead which arrives with centimetric accuracy.

As you say, several per ship with sub-meter aiming makes warhead size less important, although LRASM was designed to kill 'Capital' ships. JSM is land-attack too, so a good complementary mix.

That's why I 'voted' on a thread started by eloise for a combination of 4 x LRAMS and 2 x JSM as the best against a Chinese Type 055 destroyer.

Good luck for ANY warship to survive against 4 x LRAMS and 2 x JSM launched by a single F-35!

[element1loop]

JSM is similar, only with shorter range and lesser punch, but naturally in a lot smaller package which gives it many advantages especially in coastal warfare and for smaller platforms. And it still does have very good range and no ship wants to eat <100kg warhead which arrives with centimetric accuracy.

As you say, several per ship with sub-meter aiming makes warhead size less important, although LRASM was designed to kill 'Capital' ships. JSM is land-attack too, so a good complementary mix.

That's why I 'voted' on a thread started by eloise for a combination of 4 x LRAMS and 2 x JSM as the best against a Chinese Type 055 destroyer. Good luck for ANY warship to survive against 4 x LRAMS and 2 x JSM launched by a single F-35!

True, but even that could be a considerable overkill and missile waste, ric.

Russian CIWS derivations do not perform well against even slow drones (for the cannon) or against non-VLO cruise weapons for the SAM. Chinese DDG CIWS systems are unlikely to perform any better.

Plus LRASM is black for a reason (JSM will probably be same middle-grey as NSM). It's for a low optical signature at night, plus low thermal signature coating and materials, with a turbine-destroying power-dive from a cold dark sky with an air frame nearer to -40C (i.e. acting as a heat sink). Just small warmer leading edges and nose. It will probably reach Mach ~1.5 in a steep terminal power dive from cold air for about 10 seconds before the hit.

And no need for super-low and slow sea-skimming approaches and fuel wasting in warm air either. That tactic is only needed when they can readily detect the missile approach. This does not apply to LRASM and JSM, and its not clear at what radius it does matter. If they cruise in 12 km up and power dive they will also close the terminal distance much faster, once they do get to an initial detection radius. LRASM and JSM will close the distance much faster than a Harpoon sea-skimmer pop-up ever could. It's the terminal-phase speed that matters most, not the transonic cruise speed in cold air.

LRASM can come from anywhere in the hemisphere above the horizon. This makes it much harder to detect early, compared to just scanning the horizon (which they will still have to do, so this makes the challenge so much higher for a ship’s sensors). Much more dangerous than sea skimmers. And these 1,000 lb to 2,000 lb ASuW missiles with a terminal supersonic dive, will cut through thin ship skin and bulkhead to a location needed to make them unable to fight or to move, and probably not worth repairing either. If they power-dive to attack they will indeed be supersonic. That's the enhanced terminal maneuver, plus added energy for turns with engine pegged to the point of melting its turbine within a few more seconds.

And there's really no need to sink the ship. It maybe better to not sink it as long as the sensors and weapons are damaged or inoperable, and the ship can not be recovered. It doesn't matter if it remains afloat for several more days. A sniper shooting a soldier may prefer to injure, rather than kill. More resources needed for a ship dead in the water with no electricity, or secure comms. More distractions and psychological effects too.

And when their own navy doesn’t show up to rescue them after a few days you cordially ask them to surrender themselves, and their ship. i.e. you force them to sink it and save on PGMs. Or not, and they hand it to you instead, so they can all be rescued. And better to prevent the rescue of a skilled crew or the weapons and sensors. Just make sure nothing can get out to rescue them and they'll have to surrender. Put them on an island and leave them there with food and water.

But if you do sink it, full of hostiles who won’t surrender, mop them up with a JSOW or Harpoon. If they get off the ship hit it with a 2,000 lb LGB in the keel. It may not sink immediately, but any DDG is going to break-up from flex in western pacific swell from there, at some point.

So that can played out with just two VLO missiles expended. Two hits with a LRASM should achieve that, even against an 8,000 ton DDG. Maybe 3 JSM to achieve same. Hopefully the renewed LRASM testing will identify how many will be needed, and answer if they really can achieve that and how to update them if they can't readily get to targets, and knock out ships that efficiently, in the opening 24 hours. If it can, PLAN are done within days, or less.

PLAN are worried enough to put a lot of resources into very large radar panels on their DDGs to give them a chance of detecting LRASM earlier, at high-altitude. But even then this missile is VLO, and VLO is hard to lock with a targeting radar, and the low EO profile may be enough to get them close, without being fired on with a lock. Modular CIWS systems using their own smaller sensors and processing are unlikely to work well in those last seconds. And may not work at all.

So 2 LRASM and the right tactics plus standoff jamming support may be all it takes. i.e. no need for extra numbers to overwhelm defenses, to get two effective hits. LRASM was made for this, and it may actually do that. There may be no effective defense against them in practice. And look at some of the early concept art, it shows LRASM attacking from a steep angle.



There's no slow transonic sea-skimming tactic there. And if the missile did climb from sea level to do that, it would be slowing down in the climb right when you don't want it to slow down. Yeah, so forget doing that. JSOW would also achieve a fast approach with a steep dive and blow a keel or engines, or both with one hit. One weapon could punch through the keel adjacent to the engines and detonate under the keel, like an ADCAP cavity-effect torpedo warhead does. One does that, one hits the C4 nerve-center and a DDG is finished. It'll never fight again, even if it remains afloat.

Even if the ship's defenses hit a LRASM above, at Mach 1.5, in the last 3 seconds, the ship is still going to get hit with high-speed incandescent frag, with 1G acceleration to overcome its new drag properties. Which then makes it far easier for a second missile to get through.

Either missile will knock the ship out of action.

Engine room gone means no electricity.

C4 gone means no weapons, comms, EW, etc.

1 hit takes it out of the fight.
2 hits and not worth recovering or repairing.
3 hits also breaks the keel so eventually sinks it.

So probably no need for more than two missile hits in practice, then rescue/capture the crew and possibly even the ship.
Either way, they're minus a $2 billion DDG for $5 million spent on 2 or 3 of the right VLO weapons.

[spazsinbad]

The Image Above does not 'HOTlink': https://defense-update.com/wp-content/u ... sm_650.jpg