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: 1747
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2015, 05:35
  • Location: Australia

Unread post21 Jan 2021, 03:26

Ah, thanks spaz, I can still see it from the cache.
Accel + Alt + VLO + DAS + MDF + Radial Distance = LIFE . . . Always choose Stealth
Offline

hornetfinn

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3578
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2013, 08:31
  • Location: Finland

Unread post21 Jan 2021, 10:24

NSM/JSM missile does this when hitting a decent sized ship:


I think that target ship is Oslo-class frigate HNoMS Trondheim. Of course that is a lot smaller than destroyers (about 1,500 long tons) but it doesn't really matter due to accuracy of the missile. Even just one of these will still take out almost any modern ship by hitting vital spots and probably sink most when hitting near waterline. I'd say that a single LRASM will mission kill even biggest destroyers and cruisers by hitting vital spots extremely accurately and having a big warhead for widespread damage.
Offline

mmm

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 88
  • Joined: 30 Jul 2013, 10:58

Unread post24 Jan 2021, 19:07

INS Hanit survived a very sizable warhead for its weight class with relatively minor damage, HMS Sheffield sank to an alleged dud, USS Stark took a direct hit and serious casualties onboard but saved, similarly USS Cole bombing, then a fire while in homeport wrote off USS Bonhomme Richard a whooping 40000t large deck LHD.

If there's any conclusion we can draw it is that you never know how things can turn out...

But as a side note I'll also say this is where the importance of BDA comes in, you probably need to close in to at least infrared sensor range for useful information. You can't tell between a burning hulk or undamaged ship otherwise.
Offline

eloise

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1979
  • Joined: 27 Mar 2015, 16:05

Unread post24 Jan 2021, 21:29

From the look of it, LRASM gonna be stealthier than JSM
Offline
User avatar

element1loop

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1747
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2015, 05:35
  • Location: Australia

Unread post25 Jan 2021, 04:26

mmm wrote:INS Hanit survived a very sizable warhead for its weight class with relatively minor damage, HMS Sheffield sank to an alleged dud, USS Stark took a direct hit and serious casualties onboard but saved, similarly USS Cole bombing, then a fire while in homeport wrote off USS Bonhomme Richard a whooping 40000t large deck LHD. If there's any conclusion we can draw it is that you never know how things can turn out... But as a side note I'll also say this is where the importance of BDA comes in, you probably need to close in to at least infrared sensor range for useful information. You can't tell between a burning hulk or undamaged ship otherwise.


Both weapons have a high-res EO sensor and two-way datalink to relay images and telemetry. So where they hit will be precisely known, and BDA possible as a second or third strike will relay the visual effects of a prior hit, then damage of the positive detonation in that location estimated. Plus it will be possible to determine if the engines are kaput (slowing, or not moving), or electrons are not flowing to systems (no defenses against second or third missile) or if its keel was broken from a large detonation under the middle of the ship.

We've discussed prior also that these newer missiles contain much more energetic fast explosives than prior cold war era anti-ship missiles.
Accel + Alt + VLO + DAS + MDF + Radial Distance = LIFE . . . Always choose Stealth
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 25933
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post25 Jan 2021, 06:38

Captive Carry [6 page PDF of article attached]
Mar 2016 ATI

"An accelerated test program integrates the joint-service Long Range Anti-Ship Missile with the US Navy Super Hornet...

...Carrier suitability testing for a Super Hornet with LRASM on board will include launches from a standard TC7 catapult and traps with Mk7 arresting gear at Patuxent River in 2018.

“We’re not planning on doing anything unique for this weapon,” says Capt. Hill. The Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division at Patuxent River also has electromagnetic environmental effects testing facilities to supplement work done by the Navy at China Lake and by Lockheed Martin in Orlando, Florida, and in pTroy[???], Michigan.

LRASM on the Super Hornet promises the Navy a powerful anti-ship weapon in the near future and NAVAIR additional test work if the Navy chooses to integrate the missile with the low-observable F-35C strike fighter also in development. Capt. Hill concludes, “Any weapon you want to integrate on any aircraft needs to be tested.”

Source: Aerospace Testing International March 2016
Attachments
LRASM TEST Aerospace_Testing_International Mar 2016 pp6.pdf
(1.87 MiB) Downloaded 518 times
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline

hornetfinn

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3578
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2013, 08:31
  • Location: Finland

Unread post25 Jan 2021, 11:30

mmm wrote:INS Hanit survived a very sizable warhead for its weight class with relatively minor damage, HMS Sheffield sank to an alleged dud, USS Stark took a direct hit and serious casualties onboard but saved, similarly USS Cole bombing, then a fire while in homeport wrote off USS Bonhomme Richard a whooping 40000t large deck LHD.

If there's any conclusion we can draw it is that you never know how things can turn out...

But as a side note I'll also say this is where the importance of BDA comes in, you probably need to close in to at least infrared sensor range for useful information. You can't tell between a burning hulk or undamaged ship otherwise.


IMO these incidents really show the importance of accuracy, ECCM, identification capability and ability to generate BDA data. Both JSM/NSM and LRASM both have very high resolution IIR seekers which can hit with extreme accuracy and are almost totally immune to all kinds of interference. High resolution sensor also allows target recognition and identification capabilities and provide very detailed BDA data which can be transmitted via data link before and during impact.

I think USS Cole bombing is close to what we could expect what kind of damage a JSM/NSM missile hit would do to a destroyer size ship when it hits a waterline. I think JSM missile would likely target some more vulnerable part of the ship though and likely cause even more damage to the ship.

INS Hanit was extremely lucky to be hit on the loading crane instead of the actual ship hull. That way the missile basically just missed the helicopter hangar and most of the explosion force didn't reach the ship itself and damage was relatively minor. Imaging seeker would most likely hit the ship at the most vulnerable point and even a small warhead would've been enough for a small corvette.
Offline

mmm

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 88
  • Joined: 30 Jul 2013, 10:58

Unread post25 Jan 2021, 16:28

Imaging seeker, smarter aimpoint selection is better, bigger warhead is more lethal as a general statement is hard to argue with. USS Cole and USS Stark are probably the median result after all. But once in a while you got the AIM-9x vs SU-22M. With so few cases of ship attack/damage there are already these very varied results, I say it's still quite possible to have all kinds of outcomes when a hit does happen, on either end of the spectrum(what about the firework come with a VLS magazine hit), even with newer missiles.

SATCOM enabled BDA should and have worked for cruise missiles, then there's the denied environment LRASM's made to address. But with that said could something stay within LoS of the missile to relay the information instead of the more susceptible satellite link, better bandwidth too? An after thought did we neglect the mention of the alive-dead-alive again JSOW-ER?

Also I forgot to mention HSV-2 and I didn't look into in detail. IIRC it's got pretty high aluminum content, consider that it was not as bad as it could have been?
Offline
User avatar

element1loop

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1747
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2015, 05:35
  • Location: Australia

Unread post26 Jan 2021, 03:53

mmm wrote:USS Cole and USS Stark are probably the median result after all.


I don't think those are median, those are on the low side of the curve. All three LRASM, JSM and NSM will enter a ship's interior and explode with higher and more damaging energy level, with surrounding ship compartments acting as a blast tamper which raises the pressure level until it blows structures apart into smaller pieces.

The USS Cole blast was on the outside, most of the blast energy remained outside. With USS Stark you can see from SINKEX footage that a Harpoon warhead is much more disappointing and ineffective than the energy release from an NSM warhead. They produce a dramatically different effect. A Perry Class was able to contain/absorb and deform with most of the energy from the Harpoon without a lot of structural disruption, or opening it up. That's unlikely to be the case with explosions with around 60% faster shock propagation, compared to a Harpoon. The rise in energy to produce that faster shock isn't linear, it'll generate more structural disruption, fragmentation and opening up, rather than energy absorption via deformations. And the frag produced will also be much more penetrating through the ship's bulkheads. And as can be seen from the video above, faster equates to hotter, and more opportunity for combustion added to a much more damaged ship. Modern warheads are going to produce another level of damage to ships, bunkers, buildings, etc.

Edit: If you're wondering about the 60% shock speed difference, when we discussed explosion speeds of missiles about 6 months back Marauder came up with a list of explosive types used in various warheads, and the Harpoon explosive (IIRC) was around 5,500 f/sec, while NSM was around 8,000 f/sec. In which case NSMs detonations would be ~68% faster than a Harpoon, with much more energy behind it, to smash open a ship and burn it, rather than just deform it. And keep in mind that in recent weapon tests all flammables, weapons and fuel are removed. In a real live fire the ship, hit by NSM/JSM or LRASM, would burn fiercely for hours or days from a very large opening in the structure. Missile defenses against modern weapons will have to work better to prevent a hit. LRASM and NSM are not just increased range combined with VLO capabilities and better sensors and comms, they are also much harder to defend against, and far more ship-destroying if they do hit.
Accel + Alt + VLO + DAS + MDF + Radial Distance = LIFE . . . Always choose Stealth
Offline

hornetfinn

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3578
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2013, 08:31
  • Location: Finland

Unread post26 Jan 2021, 10:39

One thing with these real-world examples is that all the missiles used traditional RF seekers without imaging or pseudo-imaging capability. They used traditional non-coherent and non-imaging RF seekers which basically just go for the "blip" on the radar. That's basically what saved INS Hanit. These missiles can't really identify targets let alone target some spesific spot on the ship. Later RF seekers can do that with their (usually) Ku-band seekers (higher resolution) and coherent signal processing for creating radar images of the target for identification and hit point selection. However IIR seekers used in both LRASM and JSM/NSM are superior in it due to much higher resolution. So latest missiles will have much higher chance of hitting vulnerable spots on the ship if they get a chance to hit it.

Original AM39 Exocet missiles already were extremely reliable and had very high hit probability unless they were decoyed or shot down. The warhead was only slightly larger than used in JSM and was likely significantly less powerful due to reasons outlined by element1loop. It still did some serious damage to all ships it it even though the hit points were pretty random due to seeker technology of 1980s.
Offline

boogieman

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 384
  • Joined: 19 Aug 2019, 03:26

Unread post26 Jan 2021, 10:56

What of obscurants and other IR countermeasures? Flares? Dazzlers? Assuming the weapon gets detected before impact (not necessarily a safe assumption) the passive seeker might not always get a clear and unobstructed view of its target...
Offline

hornetfinn

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3578
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2013, 08:31
  • Location: Finland

Unread post26 Jan 2021, 12:30

boogieman wrote:What of obscurants and other IR countermeasures? Flares? Dazzlers? Assuming the weapon gets detected before impact (not necessarily a safe assumption) the seeker might not always get a clear and unobstructed view of its target...


Such countermeasures can definitely have an effect on IIR seeker performance just like they can affect active-radar anti-ship missiles. LRASM (and JSM also) has abilities to counter this with two-way data links, GPS aided INS guidance, ESM system and swarm capability between missiles. So other platforms can feed their targeting data to missile with different sensors. LRASM itself can use data from the GPS/INS guidance system (it knows where it it very accurately and also where the ship was when it last saw it and using ESM data (ship is likely emitting a lot of electrons now using all the different radars). Missiles themselves can share their data and thus approaching from different directions at the same time. All this makes it very difficult to counter LRASM with soft kill systems. But it's totally possible that such countermeasures have some effect on missile ability to hit and/or select exact aimpoint.
Offline

mmm

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 88
  • Joined: 30 Jul 2013, 10:58

Unread post27 Jan 2021, 16:46

What is the "shock speed" mind if I ask? I assume it doesn't mean detonation velocity, even going from TNT to HMX don't produce that much difference. I'm sure warhead's gotten better over the years, especially in insensitive munition department, just nothing I see suggest that much more energetic. Then again I don't claim to be the expert, I'd welcome the source.

The amount of explosive used for Cole bombing is about comparable to up to 1000lb warhead, given not all warhead mass is explosive. Assuming it's full shaped charge it's not exactly conventional, but shaped charge's directional jet don't expend energy side ways much either. Also nothing hit waterline like a boat bomb, unless it's a torpedo. With the flooding it's not a given that you can recovery from a hit like that if underway.

Short of some 50% more energetic material, multi stage penetrating warhead sounds like the biggest improvement. The multi effector concept of MBDA Perseus could have promise too, beyond a certain point growing warhead brings diminishing return, the damage is localized to a single location. Similar to how cluster munition is preferred depending on situation even given the same payload.

It's a good question to ask under what circumstance the new generation of IIR anti ship missile can fail. AIM-9x was widely assumed to be infallible to flare in the enthusiast circle, not least to Syrian SU-22 in a very high Pk shot, only then theories started to come out. SRBOC does include infrared flare as is, hard to say how the success rate is compared to better tested aircrafts. Reminds me of the story DDG laying carbon fiber smoke screen(although as I understand it was for radio frequency), as if back to WW2. May not be that outlandish afterall, all you can assume these day is that technology monopoly won't last forever.

Although LRASM may have an active radar seeker as well? Information on that is a bit vague.
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3278
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post27 Jan 2021, 20:19

mmm wrote:It's a good question to ask under what circumstance the new generation of IIR anti ship missile can fail. AIM-9x was widely assumed to be infallible to flare in the enthusiast circle, not least to Syrian SU-22 in a very high Pk shot, only then theories started to come out.


Yes, I remember those claims back then. I even remember a friend of mine telling me how the AIM-9X and ASRAAM weren't affected by Flares at all. Then I told him that if a Flare manages to completely hide/obscure the targeted aircraft then it wouldn't be able to track the targeted aircraft. Of course the missile can be programmed to ignore Flares to fly towards the predicted area where the target aircraft should be and then after being cleared from the Flares it could readquire the targeted aircraft. However this still gives the target aircraft a chance to evade.
In the end, IIR seekers are very similar to the human eye (the diference being that they use the IR spectrum and humans use the light spectrum) - if you put an obstacle between you and your target which is able to totally hide the target then you won't be able to track the target at all.
And what's happening today is that bigger flares are being deployed by fighter aircraft which grants a bigger effectiveness against IIR Air-to-Air missiles.

But if we jump to ships or with the example above if we replace a fighter aircraft (like a Su-22 for example) with a warship like for example a Frigate or a Destroyer the we have a 'problem' here which is related to the target's size - Warships are much, much bigger (and even smaller warships like Corvettes are much bigger) than fighter aircraft which means that these targets are much harder to be hidden by IR decoys (doesn't matter which type of decoy) compared again to fighter aircraft.

Moreover and like it was previously said, these anti-ship missiles (LRAMS, JSM) possess other sensors that help the missile to better evade IR decoys.


mmm wrote:Although LRASM may have an active radar seeker as well? Information on that is a bit vague.


As far as I know, no. LRASM has a passive radar seeker (and not active).
“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.
Offline

marauder2048

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1496
  • Joined: 14 Mar 2012, 06:46

Unread post28 Jan 2021, 04:10

There was a NATO trial back in 2016 of an off-the-shelf MWIR IIR "seeker" flown against
off-the-shelf obscurants.

My takeaway was that if you can completely cover a vessel with IR obscurants you stand a
pretty good chance of causing the seeker track gate to wander off the vessel and onto
the background.

But separation between the obscurant cloud and the vessel was exploitable by
even the basic seeker employed in the trial.

mwir-iir-seeker-sim.png
Attachments
AD1036842.pdf
U.S. Naval Research Laboratory Final Analysis Report to NATO Above Water Warfare Capabilities Group 2016 Naval Electromagnetic Operations Trials
(1.59 MiB) Downloaded 215 times
PreviousNext

Return to F-35 Armament, Stores and Tactics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests