GAO Report on F-35 FoM (ie Block 4 and forward)

[ricnunes]

We can forget about getting LRASMs in VLS as there are simply are not enough strike length VLS on any of the ships we have, or those we will acquire by 2040.

Well, from what I researched about the subject, the LRASM should also fit on the tactical version/length VLS as well.

Knowing that the LRASM without the booster has a length of 4.27 meters:
http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.ph ... video.html

And looking at the photo of an LRAM with a booster and inside and canister (I assume ready for the VLS):


I calculate that the LRASM with the booster has a length of 5.82 meters (approx.) while the canister itself has a length of 6.45 meter (approx.) so there shouldn't be a problem fitting it inside a Tactical VLS Mk41 which can carry weapons/canisters up to a length of 6.8 meters.

The LRASM shouldn't only fit on the Self-Defense version of the VLS but should fit on all other versions of the VLS.
I imagine that most VLS (specially on US Navy ships and also on many allied navy ships) should be the Tactical version. I would also say that any VLS that can carry the more modern or latest variants of the Standard Missile should also be able to carry the LRASM.

[wrightwing]

Flush inlet vs. non-flush inlet. That's a huge contributor to RCS.

The JSM inlet is a VLO design, too.

[marauder2048]

Flush inlet vs. non-flush inlet. That's a huge contributor to RCS.

The JSM inlet is a VLO design, too.

Can't beat a flush inlet for signature though.

[element1loop]

Flush inlet vs. non-flush inlet. That's a huge contributor to RCS.

Too many presumptions to conclude anything like that.

The inlets won’t be metal nor will they be reflecting at targeting wavelengths plus the front of the missile is wider then necks down so in a head-on geometry the inlets are shadowed by the front section of the missile while the winglets shadow the inlets from above. And the fan is not going to be visible plus the duct treated with an RCS attenuation material so I doubt there’s much in it.

[element1loop]

Well, from what I researched about the subject, the LRASM should also fit on the tactical version/length VLS as well.

Even if that were true RAN doesn't have anywhere near enough tactical cells for that either. They'd probably put VLS-ASROCs in a few cells that can take them, and all the rest for air defense. LRASM has been launched from deck quad-pack too but no one thinks that option's likely for RAN, NSM pretty much has that path in the bag. RAN as it is now, and as it is building, is structured to keep the ships out of harms way and to let RAAF kill the heavier opposing ships, plus use RAAF for deep strikes, never the surface fleet.

[weasel1962]

...which would be a tad bit difficult if any DDGs operate more than 1000nm from the nearest land airbase.

[element1loop]

...which would be a tad bit difficult if any DDGs operate more than 1000nm from the nearest land airbase.

The (fantasy) solution is get dedicated carriers with genuine striking power, and add more VLS to all ships to protect the carriers from missiles and subs. But it seems the Brass have decided (many years ago apparently) that modern VLO aircraft and their weapons represent a capability they can't afford to spend enough to defend the fleet from plus to make forwards long-range strikes, so the task has necessarily been slip-passed to RAAF by default. I don't see another way to interpret the weapon config and VLS cell numbers of the fleet, especially in the present regional circumstance. Thus not expecting a happy change there, so time to face facts, only RAAF and missiles will be able to kill heavy ships and make deep strikes from here. Which means more aircraft and more missiles to come, and I doubt the now ancient "100 aircraft" 5th-gen combat force number reflects the creeping changes. RAAF already bought heavy tankers to get to ~3,000 nm with anti-ship standoff weapons.

[Conan]

...which would be a tad bit difficult if any DDGs operate more than 1000nm from the nearest land airbase.

The (fantasy) solution is get dedicated carriers with genuine striking power, and add more VLS to all ships to protect the carriers from missiles and subs. But it seems the Brass have decided (many years ago apparently) that modern VLO aircraft and their weapons represent a capability they can't afford to spend enough to defend the fleet from plus to make forwards long-range strikes, so the task has necessarily been slip-passed to RAAF by default. I don't see another way to interpret the weapon config and VLS cell numbers of the fleet, especially in the present regional circumstance. Thus not expecting a happy change there, so time to face facts, only RAAF and missiles will be able to kill heavy ships and make deep strikes from here. Which means more aircraft and more missiles to come, and I doubt the now ancient "100 aircraft" 5th-gen combat force number reflects the creeping changes. RAAF already bought heavy tankers to get to ~3,000 nm with anti-ship standoff weapons.

I think you’re being a tad too RAAF-centric in such analysis. The RAN submarine force is our primary ship-killig capability, supported by RAAF strikes and finally surface attacks.

[element1loop]

...which would be a tad bit difficult if any DDGs operate more than 1000nm from the nearest land airbase.

The (fantasy) solution is get dedicated carriers with genuine striking power, and add more VLS to all ships to protect the carriers from missiles and subs. But it seems the Brass have decided (many years ago apparently) that modern VLO aircraft and their weapons represent a capability they can't afford to spend enough to defend the fleet from plus to make forwards long-range strikes, so the task has necessarily been slip-passed to RAAF by default. I don't see another way to interpret the weapon config and VLS cell numbers of the fleet, especially in the present regional circumstance. Thus not expecting a happy change there, so time to face facts, only RAAF and missiles will be able to kill heavy ships and make deep strikes from here. Which means more aircraft and more missiles to come, and I doubt the now ancient "100 aircraft" 5th-gen combat force number reflects the creeping changes. RAAF already bought heavy tankers to get to ~3,000 nm with anti-ship standoff weapons.

I think you’re being a tad too RAAF-centric in such analysis. The RAN submarine force is our primary ship-killing capability, supported by RAAF strikes and finally surface attacks.

I discussed the surface fleet only, I didn't even bother with the sub force, as it's so small and operates from one base in south western WA, and how many are available any one time? Not enough to take seriously. And its replacement is 15 to 25 years away if we're lucky. Plus they're incredibly slow. This isn't WWII any more, they have the wrong propulsion, and can barely field crews on them. Anyone who thinks that's a primary attack force within our regional geography and context is not dealing with reality. The term tokenistic capability (at best) springs to mind.

Frankly an extremely cheap fleet of just 6 Reapers with JSM anti-ship missiles would make a far better anti-ship force than 6 Collins Class subs ever will. And they can be out there 24/7, all weather, addressing an area 100 times the size a Collins could address in one day, getting there and back fast, and could work with JORN, P-8A and MQ-4 for patrol shadowing and ASW, along with LHD and Hunters, while we invest in a national hydrophone array, and some actual anti-sea-mine capability.

[ricnunes]

Even if that were true RAN doesn't have anywhere near enough tactical cells for that either. They'd probably put VLS-ASROCs in a few cells that can take them, and all the rest for air defense.

Well, the Hunter-class frigates (Type 26 GCS) should have at least 24 Strike-length VLS cells (this from reportedly a totally of 32 cells).
And I would also be extremely surprised if some or many of 48 VLS cells of the Hobart-class destroyers weren't at least Tactical-length cells.
So I wouldn't rule out that the Australian Navy chooses the LRASM for use on its ships and their VLS cells even as a potential future Harpoon missile replacement since all major Australian surface combatants would have VLS cells capable of firing the LRASM.
Actually I remember to have read that the Australians (Navy I believe) were reportedly interested in the LRASM as well as other allied navies such as for example, the Canadian Navy.

[element1loop]

So I wouldn't rule out that the Australian Navy chooses the LRASM for use on its ships and their VLS cells ...

Don't hold your breath, we'd get SM6 and a VLS-ASROC first and it would be immediately blindingly apparent to all that there are nowhere near enough VLS remaining for a credible air defense if LRASM were in VLS as well. I am fully in favor of that missile being acquired but the only places LRASM may go is some combo of SuperHornet (it's a temporary fleet from here), F-35A (much more likely) and P-8A (very desirable) or a new armed version of MQ-4 (unlikely). No one's going to be putting LRASM on a RAN ship within my lifetime.

[weasel1962]

Pairing of the P-8 with the MQ-4C does make for a much longer endurance. Wonder if they will put the JASSM on the P-8? That would be better than the Harps.

Agree with posters on LRASM fit for Mk 41 launcher. Smallest Mk-41 version is 5.3m and fires the SM-2MR Blk IIIB which is 186 inches (4.7m). Probably software config. SM-6 will require longer Mk-41 mod (6.6m or 7.7m). Not sure which mod Hobart is equipped with.

[element1loop]

Pairing of the P-8 with the MQ-4C does make for a much longer endurance. Wonder if they will put the JASSM on the P-8? That would be better than the Harps.

Agree with posters on LRASM fit for Mk 41 launcher. Smallest Mk-41 version is 5.3m and fires the SM-2MR Blk IIIB which is 186 inches (4.7m). Probably software config. SM-6 will require longer Mk-41 mod (6.6m or 7.7m). Not sure which mod Hobart is equipped with.

Bottom line, despite being nominally 'multi-role' the 'AWD's are "air warfare destroyers" actually, and their VLS numbers are far less than was expected for that role, and much less than hoped for. It was widely recognized at the time of the competition win that the low cell numbers precluded Tomahawks unless the cell numbers were substantially upgraded at a later date. The same applies to LRASM on AWDs, and there's no indication such a cell number upgrade is coming.

Same applies to the Hunter Class as their primary role and optimization is for ASW, not for closing in for striking with long-range missiles, and the low cell numbers reflect the lower emphasis on air defense needs, and a non-existent allocation of cells for long-range strike capability. A pity as it's a wide-beam deep hull ship. So the picture painted is clear (very clear IMO) there's no intent nor even a capacity to use the surface fleet for strikes against a major power's long-range surface or land targets. ADF are apparently not interested in long-range attack weapons from ships, they've gone a completely different route, and it remains to be seen what that is, but so far it looks to be F-35A plus JSM and JSOW and tankers.

Then maybe a long-range anti-ship missile on P-8As (if a JASSM/LRASM follow-on missile has LOTS of standoff range, otherwise they'll shrink from that too, the moment it's criticized and lacerated to ribbons in media by the Kopp-esqe types ... despite the Harpoon BKII having stuff-all standoff ... ).

[marauder2048]

JASSM and LRASM are at the ragged edge of P-8's wing station weight limits.

[weasel1962]

Not an issue, just mount it on the fuselage. Same thing was done for the Singapore F-50 MPA mated with the Harp.