LRASM sensor production 2017

Unread postPosted: 02 Nov 2017, 05:47
by neptune
http://www.baesystems.com/en-us/article ... ion-begins

Long range anti-ship missile sensor production begins

Nov 1 2017

Production has started on sensor technology for next-generation, precision-guided stealth missiles
BAE Systems has begun production of its sensor technology for the Long Range Anti-Ship Missile (LRASM) following a $40 million order from prime contractor Lockheed Martin. The sensor enables the missile to seek and attack specific high-threat maritime targets within groups of ships, including those protected by sophisticated anti-aircraft systems. The missile’s range, survivability, and lethality capabilities are designed to help warfighters more effectively conduct missions in denied environments from beyond the reach of return fire ― meeting a pressing need for both the U.S. Navy and U.S. Air Force. LRASM is a next-generation, precision-guided stealth missile capable of semi-autonomously detecting and identifying targeted enemy ships. The precision routing and guidance technology of the sensor ― which doesn’t rely exclusively on intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance systems, networking links, or GPS navigation ― enables the missile to operate effectively in contested domains and all weather conditions, day or night. “The production of our advanced sensor for LRASM is a testament to the strength of our technology and our ability to transition the capability from airframes to missiles,” said Joseph Mancini, LRASM program manager at BAE Systems. “Precision guidance and advanced electronics are areas where we have leading capabilities, and where we can provide warfighters with an advantage on the battlefield.” BAE Systems’ advanced mid-course sensor technology incorporates the company’s software and hardware capabilities designed for the world’s leading electronic warfare aircraft platforms. The sensor system also represents the company’s approach to bringing precision guidance to small platforms and builds on the company’s expertise in signal processing and target detection and location. As part of BAE Systems’ close work with LRASM prime contractor Lockheed Martin, the company provided the sensor technology that supported a recent successful demonstration of the anti-ship missile. The launch demonstrates LRASM’s ability to address the Navy's need for versatile, multi-platform precision munitions that enable distributed operations. Work on the sensor technology will be conducted at BAE Systems’ facilities in Nashua, New Hampshire and Wayne, New Jersey.

....now with this sensor in production, LRASM can be certified for the SBUG and the Bone. Similar to the JASSM-ER which is certified for the F-16 and F-18 both of which are to be replaced by the F-35A/B/C. This is a great step forward to support the implementation of UAI weapons systems of both the 4+/ 5 Gen US a/c.
:)

Re: LRASM sensor production 2017

Unread postPosted: 13 Dec 2017, 07:17
by spazsinbad
Navy completes LRASM milestone test event
12 Dec 2017 PEO(U&W) Public Affairs

"Point Mugu Sea Test Range, Calif. – The U.S. Navy is closer to delivering its new Long Range Anti-Ship Missile (LRASM) after completing another milestone test flight from an Air Force B-1B Lancer Dec. 8 over Point Mugu Sea Test Range in California. During the test, aircrew aboard the B-1B simultaneously launched two missiles against multiple moving maritime targets for the first time....

...Early operational capability for the LRASM is slated for 2018 on the U.S. Air Force B-1 Lancer and 2019 on the U.S. Navy F/A-18E/F Super Hornet."

Source: http://www.navair.navy.mil/index.cfm?fu ... ry&id=6709

Re: LRASM sensor production 2017

Unread postPosted: 28 Sep 2019, 07:05
by element1loop
USAF aims to double long-term JASSM production up to 10,000 units

27 September, 2019

SOURCE: FlightGlobal.com

BY: Garrett Reim Los Angeles

The US Department of Defense (DoD) is increasing potential long-term production quantities of Lockheed Martin Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missiles (JASSM) from a possible maximum of 4,900 to a possible maximum of 10,000. The US Air Force (USAF) Material Command signaled its intention to increase missile production in a 27 September notice that seeks production sources. Acquisition regulations require the service to seek alternative sources even though Lockheed Martin is the only producer.

The USAF also seeks to increase quantities of Lockheed Martin-made Long Range Anti-Ship Missiles (LRASM) from a possible maximum of 110 to a possible maximum of 400, says the notice. LRASM is based on the extended range version of JASSM (JASSM-ER), which has a range of more than 500nm (926km). LRASM is a joint development effort of the USAF and the US Navy.

Image
Boeing B-1B launching Lockheed Martin JASSM
Lockheed Martin

Image

... The building construction is scheduled for completion in 2021, with JASSM-ER production ramping up in the second half of 2022, the company says.

The USAF’s previous JASSM production notice for lot 17 asked for 360 missiles in 2018. That makes this most-recent source-sought announcement the largest intended acquisition of JASSM. The USAF says it wants up to 390 JASSM-ERs in lot 18; then 360 JASSM-ERs and 40 JASSM missiles in lot 19. Production would reach a maximum rate of 550 units per lot continuing through lot 30, the service says.

LRASM production also continues to ramp up from lot 1 production in 2017, which called for 23 missiles. The USAF says it wants 50 LRASM missiles in lot four, reaching a maximum rate of 96 per lot, continuing through lot eight.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... to-461148/

Re: LRASM sensor production 2017

Unread postPosted: 28 Sep 2019, 13:57
by mixelflick
I understand the need for this weapon on F-16, 18, F-35's and of course B-1B's.... but B-2's?

I thought the prevailing thinking there was that it didn't need standoff weapons. In any case, I'm glad its getting it because I've long thought it's window of complete invulnerability may be closing.

Re: LRASM sensor production 2017

Unread postPosted: 28 Sep 2019, 21:11
by wolfpak
The combination of the B-2 or any stealth aircraft and the JASSM/LRASSM gives you plausible deniability for strikes at targets during peacetime especially when they're located within a country with an IADS. Think an alternate to the Bin Laden operation in 2011. It would also be useful in a strike at high noon on a bright and sunny day when you didn't want to expose the aircraft to visual targeting. The B-2 is especially useful because of its range. It and the JASSM-XR will be a great combination in the western Pacific.

Re: LRASM sensor production 2017

Unread postPosted: 29 Sep 2019, 12:32
by ricnunes
mixelflick wrote:I understand the need for this weapon on F-16, 18, F-35's and of course B-1B's.... but B-2's?

I thought the prevailing thinking there was that it didn't need standoff weapons. In any case, I'm glad its getting it because I've long thought it's window of complete invulnerability may be closing.


Well, the same question that you're posting regarding the B-2 applies equally to the F-35 as well since both aircraft have similar levels of reduced RCS (stealth) with some sources even indicating that the F-35 RCS could be slightly lower than the B-2.

Anyway and on top of what wolfpak said I would say that equipping the B-2 and F-35 with the JASSM will give these aircraft one more "extra" weapon choice in which and IMO an "extra weapon" is never too much.

Re: LRASM sensor production 2017

Unread postPosted: 29 Sep 2019, 12:55
by element1loop
Beats an F-117A with two LGBs.

Re: LRASM sensor production 2017

Unread postPosted: 30 Sep 2019, 18:40
by mixelflick
element1loop wrote:Beats an F-117A with two LGBs.


Yep. And that capability (F-117 level stealth, w/2 LGB's) has yet to be demonstrated by a rival. I don't see the J-20 being able to pull that off, much less the SU-57. It makes me wonder why these 2 are NOT capable of carrying 2, 2,000lb class weapons (or are they?), along with the requisite stealth to get in/out undetected.

They've either judged the air superiority mission to be that much more important (likely, given US dominance in the area), or they're just not there yet. On the one hand it doesn't look like the J-20's weapons bays are big enough. On the other, the SU-57's stealth doesn't sound like its up to the task.

But we will see..

Re: LRASM sensor production 2017

Unread postPosted: 30 Sep 2019, 20:03
by marauder2048
mixelflick wrote:I understand the need for this weapon on F-16, 18, F-35's and of course B-1B's.... but B-2's?

I thought the prevailing thinking there was that it didn't need standoff weapons. In any case, I'm glad its getting it because I've long thought it's window of complete invulnerability may be closing.


If you need a powered, penetrator warhead with a terminal seeker there aren't a lot of other options.

Re: LRASM sensor production 2017

Unread postPosted: 01 Oct 2019, 00:15
by rheonomic
mixelflick wrote:I thought the prevailing thinking there was that it didn't need standoff weapons. In any case, I'm glad its getting it because I've long thought it's window of complete invulnerability may be closing.

Still gives you more range ... use the VLO to fly in further, launch JASSMs at targets that otherwise couldn't be prosecuted.

Re: LRASM sensor production 2017

Unread postPosted: 01 Oct 2019, 01:37
by wrightwing
I'd think the benefits of a stealthy long range strike would be self-evident.

Re: LRASM sensor production 2017

Unread postPosted: 02 Oct 2019, 10:07
by mmm
Another takeaway is that USAF's taking over a good chunk of air delivered ASuW against a proper peer. To be fair Tactical air is never going to match the capacity or reach of proper land based bomber, now the traditional weak links in the kill chain are better addressed with modern ISRTA/battle network as well as increasing risk to forward deployed forces it makes a lot more sense to make the transfer. Without a clear short term follow-on(known in the public domain that is) I think this is a rather straight forward step., LRASM is here to stay.

Re: LRASM sensor production 2017

Unread postPosted: 02 Oct 2019, 11:54
by popcorn
mixelflick wrote:I understand the need for this weapon on F-16, 18, F-35's and of course B-1B's.... but B-2's?

I thought the prevailing thinking there was that it didn't need standoff weapons. In any case, I'm glad its getting it because I've long thought it's window of complete invulnerability may be closing.


What's not to like with a fire-and-forget strike capability against multiple dispersed targets?

Re: LRASM sensor production 2017

Unread postPosted: 02 Oct 2019, 22:09
by blain
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. The mobility and flexibility of the CSG are its greatest assets, but it will difficulty projecting power without adequate AR resources. The task for the US and its allies is easier than the Chinese - first, conduct sea denial, then establish control.

For the moment, bombers gives the United States an asymmetric advantage in the ability to deny the Chinese ability to conduct offensive maritime operations. A B-2 can carry 16 JASSMs/LRASMs. The B-21 likely will carry a similar load. 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. The Taiwan Strait is only about 100 mi across, which gives the US little margin. But barring an intelligence failure or miscalculation, an invasion force will need time to load their ships, which will be difficult to do under fire.

Adding JASSMs and LRASMs should be a priority for the USAF.

Long term, the Chinese will attempt to counter bombers. I don't think counter stealth radar will be a threat. But I could see them leveraging unmanned ISR platforms and putting up a lot of them to screen their operations with fighters. The US may need to develop a long range fighter, or maybe a loyal wingman for bombers focused on counter air?

Re: LRASM sensor production 2017

Unread postPosted: 03 Oct 2019, 15:59
by swiss
Is there any news if the LRASM reach IOC on the Arleigh Burke-class? And how many units they Navy has or will have?

Re: LRASM sensor production 2017

Unread postPosted: 03 Oct 2019, 19:46
by blain
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.

Re: LRASM sensor production 2017

Unread postPosted: 03 Oct 2019, 23:55
by marauder2048
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.

Re: LRASM sensor production 2017

Unread postPosted: 04 Oct 2019, 09:29
by element1loop
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.

Re: LRASM sensor production 2017

Unread postPosted: 04 Oct 2019, 09:35
by mmm
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?

Re: LRASM sensor production 2017

Unread postPosted: 04 Oct 2019, 12:14
by popcorn
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.

Re: LRASM sensor production 2017

Unread postPosted: 04 Oct 2019, 13:17
by aussiebloke
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

Re: LRASM sensor production 2017

Unread postPosted: 04 Oct 2019, 17:06
by swiss
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.

Re: LRASM sensor production 2017

Unread postPosted: 04 Oct 2019, 17:34
by element1loop
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).

Re: LRASM sensor production 2017

Unread postPosted: 04 Oct 2019, 21:57
by swiss
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

Re: LRASM sensor production 2017

Unread postPosted: 05 Oct 2019, 01:08
by marauder2048
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.

Re: LRASM sensor production 2017

Unread postPosted: 05 Oct 2019, 01:37
by element1loop
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.

Re: LRASM sensor production 2017

Unread postPosted: 05 Oct 2019, 06:04
by marauder2048
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.

Re: LRASM sensor production 2017

Unread postPosted: 06 Oct 2019, 18:39
by squirrelshoes
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?

Re: LRASM sensor production 2017

Unread postPosted: 06 Oct 2019, 21:47
by aussiebloke
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.

Re: LRASM sensor production 2017

Unread postPosted: 07 Oct 2019, 09:41
by zero-one

Kirov vs LRASM using CMANO simulator

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

Re: LRASM sensor production 2017

Unread postPosted: 08 Oct 2019, 02:40
by blain
marauder2048 wrote:
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.


This is a definite need. But do they need something more low observable? I would think the Chinese would have a capability similar to AEGIS.

Re: LRASM sensor production 2017

Unread postPosted: 08 Oct 2019, 04:04
by gc
Any ideas how stealthy the current Tomahawk is? The visible changes made to enhance its RCS compared to older Tomahawks include modification of the air intake to a flushed designed and the pinched nose that is stated to reduce the RCS. Any recent inclusion of composite structures and RAM application to reduce the RCS further.

The Tomahawk has the benefits of very long range allowing arrival from a completely unexpected direction, very low altitude sea skimming due to its subsonic speed and a completely passive seeker forcing the enemy to radiate aggressively to detect, thereby making the target itself very much more vulnerable.

Re: LRASM sensor production 2017

Unread postPosted: 08 Oct 2019, 04:41
by blain
element1loop wrote:
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.


I think your points are valid. The key weakness of VLS is that you must go to a port to reload. Surface combatants are not the ideal platform to fight it out at sea with a peer SAG or CSG, especially if you consider the American CSGs are going to operating out a range from the Chinese mainland, conducting forays within the second island chain as needed to support US war objectives.

One B-2 can carry 16 LRASM sized weapons, if you consider the ability to conduct several sorties over a 24 hour period a squadron of bombers can bring to bear a lot of firepower, especially if it can be paired with a reliable ISR asset. Even if Chinese surface combatants are able to shoot down a number of the missiles, they will also have to confront the issue of reloading missile cells. Unless Chinese are able to neutralize Taiwan with a vertical envelopment, they will not be able to defeat the ROC until they able to insure the safety of amphibious vessels and merchant ships. The LRASM/stealth bomber combination gives the US an asymmetrical advantage. The main limitation will be the size of the LRASM stockpile.

Even without air refueling, the bomber's range complicates the PLARF's ability to target potential bomber bases. Here is where dispersal gives the US a big advantage.

Re: LRASM sensor production 2017

Unread postPosted: 08 Oct 2019, 10:52
by element1loop
blain wrote:I think your points are valid. The key weakness of VLS is that you must go to a port to reload. Surface combatants are not the ideal platform to fight it out at sea with a peer SAG or CSG, especially if you consider the American CSGs are going to operating out a range from the Chinese mainland, conducting forays within the second island chain as needed to support US war objectives.

One B-2 can carry 16 LRASM sized weapons, if you consider the ability to conduct several sorties over a 24 hour period a squadron of bombers can bring to bear a lot of firepower, especially if it can be paired with a reliable ISR asset. Even if Chinese surface combatants are able to shoot down a number of the missiles, they will also have to confront the issue of reloading missile cells. Unless Chinese are able to neutralize Taiwan with a vertical envelopment, they will not be able to defeat the ROC until they able to insure the safety of amphibious vessels and merchant ships. The LRASM/stealth bomber combination gives the US an asymmetrical advantage. The main limitation will be the size of the LRASM stockpile.

Even without air refueling, the bomber's range complicates the PLARF's ability to target potential bomber bases. Here is where dispersal gives the US a big advantage.


The other significant benefit would be obvious to anyone who's spent time at sea steaming from point A to point B. It takes a loooong time to get where you're going at ~15 knots, the Pacific is huge, it takes weeks to get anywhere between quadrants. The advantage of the bombers and LRASM mix is they can very quickly limit how much damage an enemy's navy can do, plus how far they can get to, as it preps for the arrival of USN air power, which will now have all the advantages.

With tactical LEO satellite coverage, MQ-4, B-1B + LRASM, PLAN are going to be suppressed early and will want to stay nearer to air cover. Can you imagine being 1 week steaming time away from the Chinese mainland's air-cover with western aircraft and weapons like those hunting for you? It's just a matter of time until you get hit. Then even as you approach the mainland you're also approaching the second, then first Island chains ...

IMO, PLAN are likely to be deterred by these first MQ-4s being deployed plus new a IR satellite constellation in the works, B1-B being heavily upgraded and now JASSM-ER and LRASM numbers rising (on top of everything else that's occurring in the region). The PLA have done a lot with their systems and new weapons for sure, but are they really any more likely to gain and hold the initiative in a fight? Not for very long.

Combine that mix with GLCM types and much better SAM data and SA from F-35's real-time data feed and a large number of better defended MOB, plus well-developed FARP option. If Australia does similar with C-17A and F-35A plus growler from forward rough bases while Japan does same with Kawasaki C-2 and F-35B ... then USN approaches and sustains a steady well-defended standoff attack ...

That's a dicey mix for China to take-on from multiple directions at once, diplomacy would seem the best option.

Re: LRASM sensor production 2017

Unread postPosted: 08 Oct 2019, 11:08
by spazsinbad
'element1loop' said: "The other significant benefit would be obvious to anyone who's spent time at sea steaming from point A to point B. It takes a loooong time to get where you're going at ~15 knots, the Pacific is huge, it takes weeks to get anywhere between quadrants...." Bin Dere Dun Dat - GOT the T-shirt. However in the USN of today a CVN goes much faster all day all night. Did you forget? Also it is likely that the Japan Based CVN will 'be there' soonish rather than lateish with a complete carrier air wing etc.

ASLO (yes virginny): "...If Australia does similar with C-17A and F-35A plus growler from forward rough bases...." Where are these 'forward rough bases' please.

Re: LRASM sensor production 2017

Unread postPosted: 08 Oct 2019, 15:08
by element1loop
spazsinbad wrote:'element1loop' said: "The other significant benefit would be obvious to anyone who's spent time at sea steaming from point A to point B. It takes a loooong time to get where you're going at ~15 knots, the Pacific is huge, it takes weeks to get anywhere between quadrants...." Bin Dere Dun Dat - GOT the T-shirt. However in the USN of today a CVN goes much faster all day all night. Did you forget? Also it is likely that the Japan Based CVN will 'be there' soonish rather than lateish with a complete carrier air wing etc.

ASLO (yes virginny): "...If Australia does similar with C-17A and F-35A plus growler from forward rough bases...." Where are these 'forward rough bases' please.


A CVN may be fast in peace time but can its escorts match it, for a week?

For example, great circle distance is 4,130 nm from Honolulu to Tokyo. Suppose escorts could maintain 25kts in a noisy inefficient sprint in the prevailing sea-state(s) which they encounter over the course of the transit, in an ocean increasingly likely to have submarines present, as they approach East Asia, or anywhere along the route really - would it be a good idea to do that?

Arguable, presumably you think that's doable and survivable. Maybe it is.

So let's say they did achieve that and it was a good tactical plan to transit that way and maintain replenishment.

4,130/25 = 165.2 hr = 6.9 days.

1-week for transit from Hawaii, or 2-weeks (very optimistic minimum) from a US mainland port to reach a useful combat range to East Asian targets. Bombers and anti-ship cruise missiles could sink the most important parts of the PLAN fleet within that time-frame, as a major USN force sprints to arrive with backup and replacements cycling in then out. i.e. maintaining a steady fighting effort, as referred to.

I presume local naval forces will have an effect - of course. Having B-1B thinning-out PLAN surface ships around the clock will enable them to be increasingly effective and survivable. But Chinese ISR drones represent a danger to those ships and are likely to be used early as expendables to prosecute targeting. It may be that the ships are pulled back until platforms, weapons, tactics and the threat have been better characterized and understood and the targeting capabilities degraded.

"Forward rough bases" would be wherever forces are permitted to operate a FARP. If you look at the linked document it discusses sealed runways that are no narrower than 75ft and ~8,000 feet long with potential for runways no shorter than 6,000 ft (just able to allow C-17A short-field takeoff and over-run buffer). It specifically excludes runways within Australia or PNG but suggests these also may be utilized in such a fight, i.e. for short-term tactical FARP launch points with the fighter's landing-points being elsewhere after the mission within an allied territory. The next day a different transient FARP site is used as launching point, etc. The C-17s carry fuel, ground equipment, munitions etc., reload and return to OZ or some other main operating base after fighters launch to attack, i.e. this is not just pertaining to F-35B, the document is a pre-F-35B IOC, and cites F-22A as the fighter utilizing such FARPs, so the concept naturally lends itself to F-35A and B as well. This is done with Intel's monitoring of available windows of opportunity for a FARP airstrip to be used, outside satellite observation windows, that could otherwise lead to attack before the fighters launched or C-17A pack up and leave.

EDIT from the other thread's link:
https://www.airuniversity.af.edu/Portal ... -Davis.pdf

Re: LRASM sensor production 2017

Unread postPosted: 08 Oct 2019, 15:22
by spazsinbad
Did you mention the Japan based CVN? Yes otherwise distances from the West Coast of the USA are large indeed. However the CVN (probably with the nuke sub) will go fast if needed to get there fast - the rest will straggle along - by the time 'the rest' are needed they'll be there. As for the enemy submarine threat the CVN has ROMEO ASW helos which will be very effective along with the nuke sub. ASW is a whole other concept not for this forum I suspect & that is an interesting PDF.

Re: LRASM sensor production 2017

Unread postPosted: 08 Oct 2019, 15:35
by weasel1962
The west coast CVNs will be sailing into land based air cover e.g in Japan.

Re: LRASM sensor production 2017

Unread postPosted: 08 Oct 2019, 15:38
by element1loop
spazsinbad wrote:Did you mention the Japan based CVN? I presume local naval forces will have an effect - of course.


Not specifically.

... I presume local naval forces will have an effect - of course. ...


I disagree with you, the idea PLAN/PLAAF concept is to use ballistic and cruise weapons against vulnerable carriers and leaving escorts behind is a bad idea.

Fair enough ASW is for elsewhere, but it's a major factor, passive sonar is not going to work at transit speed of a CVN, and active gives the game away, so the sub becomes as much a target as the CVN in that case rather than an effective escort. Perhaps active-dipping or a P-8As (or drone) will have the capacity can stay ahead of it and listen, then communicate with the sub re a contact and location. But Aegis is going to be elsewhere if it fires antiship missiles, or is detected by a PLA LO drone relaying location and vector data. You could send DDGs the other way to cover its approach and perform ASW along the path as well I suppose.

Re: LRASM sensor production 2017

Unread postPosted: 08 Oct 2019, 15:46
by element1loop
weasel1962 wrote:The west coast CVNs will be sailing into land based air cover e.g in Japan.


They have their own air cover so that's not the problem. The problem is if a sub fires a volley of anti-ship missiles and Aegis is >300 nm away. No head's-up and no other layers. It has its own CIWS, but that's not what's supposed to be defending it, let alone solely relying on it doing the job.

The other is that of drone detection and tracking (even by a network of LO small surface vessels) followed by a volley of BMs. Maybe THAAD or SM-3 gets these in boost, maybe they don't, but the Aegis escorts should be with the carrier for very obvious reasons, it's their raison-detre, and this is high-end.

Re: LRASM sensor production 2017

Unread postPosted: 08 Oct 2019, 15:48
by weasel1962
Bigger issue will be targeting. One of the first things the Chinese could do is switch off the ais. That adds a few thousand commercial vessels that needs to be id-ed otherwise any lrasm is just wasted on a useless merch.

Re: LRASM sensor production 2017

Unread postPosted: 08 Oct 2019, 15:51
by element1loop
weasel1962 wrote:Bigger issue will be targeting. One of the first things the Chinese could do is switch off the ais. That adds a few thousand commercial vessels that needs to be id-ed otherwise any lrasm is just wasted on a useless merch.


I'd say the best thing to do is degrade the Chinese targeting ASAP, then the whole thing becomes much simpler, less frenetic and naval air and bomber power can be poured on to PLAN and its naval bases plus airbases with much less difficulty. *IF* you could do that, you win the info war, then the air war, then the naval war.

Re: LRASM sensor production 2017

Unread postPosted: 09 Oct 2019, 02:08
by element1loop
marauder2048 wrote:
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.


Looks like this is what's soaking them up, apparently considered good enough in that role. Sub-launched LRASM a long way off, if ever.

New Virginia-Class Submarines to Hold More Missiles
Connie Lee, National Defense Magazine October 5, 2019

“It allows the Virginia-class to increase from 12 Tomahawks per submarine to 40,” Warnke said. “It increases the strike capabilities significantly.”

https://www.realcleardefense.com/2019/1 ... 10201.html

Re: LRASM sensor production 2017

Unread postPosted: 09 Oct 2019, 02:41
by element1loop
weasel1962 wrote:Bigger issue will be targeting. One of the first things the Chinese could do is switch off the ais. That adds a few thousand commercial vessels that needs to be id-ed otherwise any lrasm is just wasted on a useless merch.


I should have mentioned last night that LRASM uses ESM and an improved IR seeker (compared to JASSM-ER) to PID and prioritize ships, then to also select a specific aim-point on any targeted class, for maximum disruption/degradation.

Plus it is a rare expensive missile and would not be launched-blind against high-end units. The missile will have a search-box of where the target was known to be at time of launch. It has a two-way DL and SATCOM transmission also, that would update on target in flight, until either jamming drops the link or LOS is lost.

It also has the means to locate and PID the assigned target and hit only it, in a chosen location. Likewise, it has the means to recognize and reject any other ship so no hitting of civil shipping within congested areas or lanes.

LRASM's got ~$2 mil per invested into sensors, comms, autopilot, tactical maneuvers, target location and PID smart-bits. Turning off the area beacon data emissions is not going to confuse or waste a LRASM nor spare its target. Hard-kill to stop.

Turning off beacons would create a civil safety issue as well as make IDing and sorting out what's really out there a bigger information and targeting issue for the PLA to deal with as well. My guess is it's better for them to leave AIS on at first unless civil-shipping's being systematically targeted (not likely). Given the Chinese clear desire to deploy small low-observable surface craft drones for ISR they might prefer to keep the civil contact 'noise' in the mix as much as possible plus to maintain trade as long as possible during the first days. LRASM has the right tools for coping with that, either way.

Re: LRASM sensor production 2017

Unread postPosted: 09 Oct 2019, 17:40
by mmm
I'll interpret "0" LRASM for USAF past lot 3 in FYDP implies(in ways 48 for USN) that it is uncertain how many it will(or can afford to?) procure, rather than leaving its inventory at an almost undeployable 50 after all the testing and integration work. The set of traits USAF bombers possess made them impossible to ignore for high end ASuW, especially consider the rapidly improving PLAN surface force. I'll further speculate that B-21 will have a significant ASuW role, more so than B-52 during late cold war. It's simply unnatural for US to not make rather modests investment to adapt these systems for major gain in maritime strike capability and capacity.

Though I don't see in the short term PLAN will find itself hypothetically duking it out in a fleet battle in the middle of Pacific against USN. One needs to recognize their surface force are more meant as power projection tool against less power, in a sense emulating how USN utilized those same tools,than something to deny US power projection. That's for their more specialized A2/AD complex to carry out. But on the other hand one shouldn't expect them operating far from the mainland away from supports in a major conflict, nor do any of the potential contingencies require them to, unless its on the secondary peripheral theater.

LRASM's gone a long way to become a better Harpoon, still I don't expect it to operate totally independent of real time ISR, which is a short fall here, as far as systems known in the public domain are concerned. Penetrating, Persistent ISR supporting long haul bomber delivered LRASM is not known to exist. The ability for forward deployed surface ships to deliver on shorter notice, with more transient track has value in this case. SSNs, while capable of delivering cruise missiles, are still more expensive per launch cell even after VPM upgrade, inherently less able to communicate, and are probably more commonly occupied with other competing priorities. I could see a good number of MST goes onto surface ships, the capacity you can potentially get is quite significant to say the least. And its probably the weapon to make 3 ship Zumwalt class deployable assets, which IMO a hull with great potential but probably misconfigured, and horribly neglected.

Re: LRASM sensor production 2017

Unread postPosted: 09 Oct 2019, 18:12
by element1loop
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).

Re: LRASM sensor production 2017

Unread postPosted: 10 Oct 2019, 06:33
by 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.

Re: LRASM sensor production 2017

Unread postPosted: 10 Oct 2019, 07:56
by element1loop
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.

Re: LRASM sensor production 2017

Unread postPosted: 10 Feb 2020, 10:30
by 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

Re: LRASM sensor production 2017

Unread postPosted: 16 Jan 2021, 19:44
by 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

Re: LRASM sensor production 2017

Unread postPosted: 19 Jan 2021, 05:27
by doge
: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. 8) :applause: 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.

Re: LRASM sensor production 2017

Unread postPosted: 19 Jan 2021, 06:46
by wrightwing
doge wrote::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. 8) :applause: 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.

Re: LRASM sensor production 2017

Unread postPosted: 19 Jan 2021, 13:05
by ricnunes
wrightwing wrote: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).

Re: LRASM sensor production 2017

Unread postPosted: 20 Jan 2021, 08:24
by hornetfinn
wrightwing wrote: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.

Re: LRASM sensor production 2017

Unread postPosted: 20 Jan 2021, 11:03
by 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.

Re: LRASM sensor production 2017

Unread postPosted: 20 Jan 2021, 11:29
by 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.

Re: LRASM sensor production 2017

Unread postPosted: 20 Jan 2021, 15:48
by element1loop
hornetfinn wrote: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.

Re: LRASM sensor production 2017

Unread postPosted: 20 Jan 2021, 16:31
by ricnunes
element1loop wrote:
hornetfinn wrote: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!

Re: LRASM sensor production 2017

Unread postPosted: 21 Jan 2021, 03:03
by element1loop
ricnunes wrote:
element1loop wrote:
hornetfinn wrote: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.

Image

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.

Re: LRASM sensor production 2017

Unread postPosted: 21 Jan 2021, 03:16
by spazsinbad
The Image Above does not 'HOTlink': https://defense-update.com/wp-content/u ... sm_650.jpg

Re: LRASM sensor production 2017

Unread postPosted: 21 Jan 2021, 03:26
by element1loop
Ah, thanks spaz, I can still see it from the cache.

Re: LRASM sensor production 2017

Unread postPosted: 21 Jan 2021, 10:24
by hornetfinn
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.

Re: LRASM sensor production 2017

Unread postPosted: 24 Jan 2021, 19:07
by mmm
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.

Re: LRASM sensor production 2017

Unread postPosted: 24 Jan 2021, 21:29
by eloise
From the look of it, LRASM gonna be stealthier than JSM

Re: LRASM sensor production 2017

Unread postPosted: 25 Jan 2021, 04:26
by element1loop
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.

Re: LRASM sensor production 2017

Unread postPosted: 25 Jan 2021, 06:38
by spazsinbad
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

Re: LRASM sensor production 2017

Unread postPosted: 25 Jan 2021, 11:30
by hornetfinn
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.

Re: LRASM sensor production 2017

Unread postPosted: 25 Jan 2021, 16:28
by mmm
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?

Re: LRASM sensor production 2017

Unread postPosted: 26 Jan 2021, 03:53
by element1loop
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.

Re: LRASM sensor production 2017

Unread postPosted: 26 Jan 2021, 10:39
by hornetfinn
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.

Re: LRASM sensor production 2017

Unread postPosted: 26 Jan 2021, 10:56
by boogieman
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...

Re: LRASM sensor production 2017

Unread postPosted: 26 Jan 2021, 12:30
by hornetfinn
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.

Re: LRASM sensor production 2017

Unread postPosted: 27 Jan 2021, 16:46
by mmm
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.

Re: LRASM sensor production 2017

Unread postPosted: 27 Jan 2021, 20:19
by ricnunes
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).

Re: LRASM sensor production 2017

Unread postPosted: 28 Jan 2021, 04:10
by marauder2048
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

Re: LRASM sensor production 2017

Unread postPosted: 28 Jan 2021, 06:41
by element1loop
mmm wrote: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.


Enough slights thanks, this is a discussion.

The shock-speed is the sustained propagation speed of a shock wave through an explosive material. The shock results in detonation behind the shock front as it propagates. It governs the rate the material can release the chemical energy it has available. A faster shock-wave equates to a faster energy release, and a sharper impulse transient, when the shockwave interacts with surrounding materials, like a frag-tamper, or bulkhead. More impulse force is delivered in a shorter period of time. Very fast shocks produce strong sharp disruptive shattering impulses. Lower-explosives produce more gradual energy rise and a tendency to shove/push/deform objects more than shatter them or completely blow them open.

Aluminium is much more ductile than steel, which is to say even ductile forms of steel are likewise much more brittle than aluminium. So USS Stark being an aluminum upper structure with a steel hull, was much more prone to deformation above deck, to absorb a medium shock speed impulse than the steel hull would be, which is more prone to shattering, cracking, ripping and blowing open.

Source examples of the practical difference were already given above, i.e. the NSM detonation above of a very fast explosive, compared to a SINKEX Harpoon strike which has a moderate speed explosive. Those are quite a bit better than dry text to make the point.

USS Stark’s damage, a ripped open steel hull, but a mostly deformed aluminum structures above it (488 lb warhead):
Image

NSM's smaller very fast shock speed warhead produces damage on another level (276 lb warhead):
Image

There's no comparison in damage level between a medium explosive, and a smaller amount of a fast high-energy explosive. A fast explosive detonating inside a steel ship is going the destroy it.

Explosive warhead designs have not remained about the same energy release with time. The warhead of an SDBI (36 lb of AFX 757 fast explosive) is described in effects as equivalent to a Mk-82 500 lb LGB (192 lb of low to medium speed explosives mixed). Explosions are chemical energy release, every explosive material has its own shock speed, plus different atoms and different molecular bonds between them, Completely different energy release as a result as the energy comes from the bonds that change configuration. No explosives produce the same energy release level.

Newer insensitive munitions warheads are using faster explosives for sharper more shattering impulses to break things apart, combined with a higher energy release per pound, to then 'blow' them apart. Blowing as in a fast wind. A higher pressure transient and higher temperature is produced to make that faster wind. Compression produces heat. Shorten the pressure's rise-time with a faster explosive that releases more gas (and its wind) sooner, and the explosion will be hotter, it will incinerate more of what is available to be burned, and will blow things apart with more energy. Faster more penetrating frag from smaller warheads.

Re: LRASM sensor production 2017

Unread postPosted: 28 Jan 2021, 08:48
by hornetfinn
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. 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.


That AIM-9X launch against Syrian Su-22 most likely failed for some other reasons than being seduced by flares. The Super Hornet pilot said that he lost the sight of the missile right after he launched it. If it was countered by flares, it would've guided towards the Su-22 and went after flares only when it got close to it. The SH pilot would've been able to observe the missile flight and know if it missed or hit. It was not some high-G HOBS missile shot after all. Basically most likely reason is missile malfunction of some kind because of defect or maintenance error. There is always the possibility that missile fail for some reason or another. Anti-ship missiles have been very reliable in combat though.

Re: LRASM sensor production 2017

Unread postPosted: 28 Jan 2021, 10:27
by spazsinbad
I guess the story about the Shornet shooting down the Su-22 will continue to be retold incorrectly for ever and a day. The Super Hornet flew past the Su-22 warning it by ejecting flares. The Su-22 took no notice so the Super Hornet fired a malfunctioning SideWinder. Yes they disappear almost instantaneously if they malfunction, especially if they go wide out of the usual field of vision expected. So then the AIM-120 was used as per SOP to shoot down the oblivious it seems Su-22.

Su-22 Shoot Down 4 USN Pilots Explain TAILHOOK 2017 Excerpt [7min 12sec]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XAbxl_jxquo

At 4min 28sec 'MOB' [Shornet pilot shooter] says "execute a HEAD BUTT" (flypast ejecting flares) & calling on GUARD. He does this THREE times with no result then the Su-22 drops ordnance so 'MOB' SHOOTS BAD AIM-9X etc.



&
Su-22 Shoot Down 4 USN Pilots Explain ALL at TAILHOOK 2017 [47min 27sec]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uston4gybSk


Re: LRASM sensor production 2017

Unread postPosted: 28 Jan 2021, 12:59
by spazsinbad
.MP3 sound only excerpt of LCDR 'Mob' Tremel describing 3 WARNING FLARE / Guard Passes (Head Butt) then Shoot Down.

Re: LRASM sensor production 2017

Unread postPosted: 28 Jan 2021, 13:15
by spazsinbad
Su-22 Shoot Down LCDR 'Mob' Tremel Explains Warnings at TAILHOOK 2017 [same as .MP3 file]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9mZ5hy_zx9w