DARPA Long Range Anti-ship Missile (LRASM)

[TomS]

Just to complicate things, the Navy is buying two different versions of AGM-158C -- AGM-158C is LRASM, AGM-158C-2 is a naval JASSM-ER, without the RF seeker in LRASM. I expect that these will look very nearly identical to casual inspection.

U.S. Navy Comes Full Circle On JASSM Program | Aviation Week Network

After several cancellations over decades, the Navy’s revived interest in the Joint Air-to-Surface Missile family also reveals pursuit of more capabilities for it.

aviationweek.com

 

[Josh_TN]

Just to complicate things, the Navy is buying two different versions of AGM-158C -- AGM-158C is LRASM, AGM-158C-2 is a naval JASSM-ER, without the RF seeker in LRASM. I expect that these will look very nearly identical to casual inspection.

U.S. Navy Comes Full Circle On JASSM Program | Aviation Week Network

After several cancellations over decades, the Navy’s revived interest in the Joint Air-to-Surface Missile family also reveals pursuit of more capabilities for it.

aviationweek.com

Is there anything that separates the C3 from the B2? I had actuality thought perhaps that was a typo and the orders for ten C3s were B3s. B2 is the new version of 158B ER with wing modifications to extend range; I *think* B3 was to add a weapon data link. But USAF/USN seem to almost intentionally be mashing together and renaming this family of missiles to confuse.

 

[TomS]

Just to complicate things, the Navy is buying two different versions of AGM-158C -- AGM-158C is LRASM, AGM-158C-2 is a naval JASSM-ER, without the RF seeker in LRASM. I expect that these will look very nearly identical to casual inspection.

U.S. Navy Comes Full Circle On JASSM Program | Aviation Week Network

After several cancellations over decades, the Navy’s revived interest in the Joint Air-to-Surface Missile family also reveals pursuit of more capabilities for it.

aviationweek.com

Is there anything that separates the C3 from the B2? I had actuality thought perhaps that was a typo and the orders for ten C3s were B3s. B2 is the new version of 158B ER with wing modifications to extend range; I *think* B3 was to add a weapon data link. But USAF/USN seem to almost intentionally be mashing together and renaming this family of missiles to confuse.

From the FY22 DOT&E Report:

To date, there are three LRASM variants which comprise the OASuW Increment 1 program, designated LRASM 1.0, LRASM 1.1, and LRASM C-3. In FY21, the Navy introduced LRASM C-3, a version adding land strike capabilities while removing components to reduce unit cost.

So, C-3 restores some land-attack capability to LRASM, making it more of an all-rounder. There are also some documents (like the report below) that describe it as LRASM-ER, suggesting that they've bought back some of the range lost when they packed an RF sensor into JASSM, perhaps using the same new wing from the B-2 version (my speculation).

SECNAV FY 24 Budget Highlights

BTW, this doc lists the planned procurement of LRASM in FY24-28 as 585 rounds (474 C-1 and 111 C-3), in addition to the 58 C-1s in FY23 and however many were bought in LRIP before that. But it does not mention JASSM/C-2 at all, so perhaps the 2021 AvWeek article I linked above has been overtaken by developments. Restoring land attack capability in C-3 might eliminate the need for a separate C-2 version.




On the gripping hand, there is this late 2022 solicitation for C-2 development.

Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR), Patuxent River, MD, intends to issue a modification to Delivery Order (DO) N00019-22-F-0010 under the sole source Basic Ordering Agreement (BOA) N00019-19-G-0011 to Lockheed Martin Corporation – Missiles Fire Control (LMMFC), Orlando, FL to support the Government with the Long Range Anti-Ship Missile (LRASM) AGM-158C-2 strike capability and the AGM-158C-3 Phase 1 and 2 development and integration.

So, who the heck knows?

 

[CIC-TAO]

I think there are about a hundred in the current budget request, so it seems likely they will spend the rest of the decade getting to that number. But that would be a decent amount. Do you have a link to the article/quote?

U.S. Navy Seeks LRASM-Like Quantity For High-Speed Missile | Aviation Week Network

The U.S. Navy's so-called "hypersonic" missile will actually fly at maximum speeds below Mach 5.

aviationweek.com

 

[CIC-TAO]

Just to complicate things, the Navy is buying two different versions of AGM-158C -- AGM-158C is LRASM, AGM-158C-2 is a naval JASSM-ER, without the RF seeker in LRASM. I expect that these will look very nearly identical to casual inspection.

U.S. Navy Comes Full Circle On JASSM Program | Aviation Week Network

After several cancellations over decades, the Navy’s revived interest in the Joint Air-to-Surface Missile family also reveals pursuit of more capabilities for it.

aviationweek.com

Is there anything that separates the C3 from the B2? I had actuality thought perhaps that was a typo and the orders for ten C3s were B3s. B2 is the new version of 158B ER with wing modifications to extend range; I *think* B3 was to add a weapon data link. But USAF/USN seem to almost intentionally be mashing together and renaming this family of missiles to confuse.

From the FY22 DOT&E Report:

To date, there are three LRASM variants which comprise the OASuW Increment 1 program, designated LRASM 1.0, LRASM 1.1, and LRASM C-3. In FY21, the Navy introduced LRASM C-3, a version adding land strike capabilities while removing components to reduce unit cost.

So, C-3 restores some land-attack capability to LRASM, making it more of an all-rounder. There are also some documents (like the report below) that describe it as LRASM-ER, suggesting that they've bought back some of the range lost when they packed an RF sensor into JASSM, perhaps using the same new wing from the B-2 version (my speculation).

SECNAV FY 24 Budget Highlights

BTW, this doc lists the planned procurement of LRASM in FY24-28 as 585 rounds (474 C-1 and 111 C-3), in addition to the 58 C-1s in FY23 and however many were bought in LRIP before that. But it does not mention JASSM/C-2 at all, so perhaps the 2021 AvWeek article I linked above has been overtaken by developments. Restoring land attack capability in C-3 might eliminate the need for a separate C-2 version.

View attachment 697285


On the gripping hand, there is this late 2022 solicitation for C-2 development.

Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR), Patuxent River, MD, intends to issue a modification to Delivery Order (DO) N00019-22-F-0010 under the sole source Basic Ordering Agreement (BOA) N00019-19-G-0011 to Lockheed Martin Corporation – Missiles Fire Control (LMMFC), Orlando, FL to support the Government with the Long Range Anti-Ship Missile (LRASM) AGM-158C-2 strike capability and the AGM-158C-3 Phase 1 and 2 development and integration.

So, who the heck knows?

what the differences between the AGM-158 datalink and weapon datalink?

 

[Josh_TN]

So, C-3 restores some land-attack capability to LRASM, making it more of an all-rounder. There are also some documents (like the report below) that describe it as LRASM-ER, suggesting that they've bought back some of the range lost when they packed an RF sensor into JASSM, perhaps using the same new wing from the B-2 version (my speculation).

Regarding the above, are we sure that land-attack capability is removed in LRASM? As far as I can tell the terminal seeker uses the same hardware and software - it has a 3D rendering of the target so it should recognize it from any angle, which should work if its a building or a ship. The biggest difference, minus the RF sensor and likely an intraweapon datalink (though that is my personal inference and not something I've seen documented), is that the LRASM apparently has a different/modified radar altimeter to make it a sea skimmer. AGM-158A/B apparently fly pretty high, one online source I found listed 1600 feet as the lowest altitude.

I wonder if the main advantage of C3 isn't adding land attack capability so much as just reducing cost - if you have platform-weapon datalink (which LRASM has and I think the C3 retains) and it isn't jammed, you can talk the missile onto the target without any of the RF geolocation capability.

 

[Josh_TN]

what the differences between the AGM-158 datalink and weapon datalink?

That is a hell of a question. My answer/best guess:

AGM-158B's original "datalink" was one way as far as my research can tell - it was intended for bomb damage assessment. LRASM adds a weapon datalink that allows the weapon to receive target updates and change targets. I think future lots of the B version, call it B3, will add this feature as well. The C3 version seems to retain this datalink but drop the RF features of LRASM that let it ID and geolocate targets.

In additional to the two different datalinks above, my belief is that LRASM uses some kind of high frequency, short range intraweapon datalink. This would allow a group of weapons to do a Differential Time of Arrival to locate its targets, which seems like a far more efficient and accurate mechanism for target/popup threat location than using differences of phase, proportional guidance, etc. Besides making geolocation much more accurate and simplifying the RF hardware, such a weapon link would allow the missiles to coordinate an attack and probably some other clever cooperative behavior (it was a DARPA project after all). This would mean that flights of less than four or so missiles probably have no capability to locate targets and that the animations they show of a single missile geolocating its target is deliberately misleading. But this is all just a personal guess that I haven't seen documented.

 

[TomS]

are we sure that land-attack capability is removed in LRASM?

Sure reads like that from DOT&E. At very least, some land-attack features were removed.

This would mean that flights of less than four or so missiles probably have no capability to locate targets

This seems really unlikely, especially since they are fielding LRASM on platforms (P-8 in particular) that could well be solo shooters and have only four (or fewer) missiles. The idea that an single P-8 could not deliver an LRASM attack unless all four missiles function perfectly seems improbable. Just for prudence, you'd assume one failure right off the wing for mission planning. I'd believe they cross-talk to deconflict targets or share data. but not to be dependent on each other to the degree that if only one or two are working, the strike is an immediate abort.

 

[Josh_TN]

are we sure that land-attack capability is removed in LRASM?

Sure reads like that from DOT&E. At very least, some land-attack features were removed.

This would mean that flights of less than four or so missiles probably have no capability to locate targets

This seems really unlikely, especially since they are fielding LRASM on platforms (P-8 in particular) that could well be solo shooters and have only four (or fewer) missiles. The idea that an single P-8 could not deliver an LRASM attack unless all four missiles function perfectly seems improbable. Just for prudence, you'd assume one failure right off the wing for mission planning. I'd believe they cross-talk to deconflict targets or share data. but not to be dependent on each other to the degree that if only one or two are working, the strike is an immediate abort.

The DOT&E reads like that, but I'm struggling to think of what LRASM would lack to engage a land target, unless somehow the IIR seeker/programing is heavily altered to optimize ship targets at the expense of land targets. I wouldn't have thought that would be the case - what is a ship but a moving building to a missile? But perhaps I'm missing something. What else does a JASSM need to engage a land target other than GPS location and target model?

As for fielding LRASM in smaller numbers incapable of DToA - it still has a weapon datalink to the firing platform and can have waypoints set, so it could be used singly no matter what. It might have no ability to geolocate the target in that mode, but it could rely on an update from the firing platform or the target just not changing course, if course and speed were known. I find it hard to believe that the RF hardware necessary for bearing/azimuth is installed on every missile when DToA with an intraweapon datalink would achieve a better fix and the link could be used for all sorts of other useful collaboration. It's more complicated solution in terms of coding and communication, but it probably would save a lot of receiver volume/weight. It is just a personal theory in any case.

 

[Ainen]

Regarding the above, are we sure that land-attack capability is removed in LRASM? As far as I can tell the terminal seeker uses the same hardware and software - it has a 3D rendering of the target so it should recognize it from any angle, which should work if its a building or a ship. The biggest difference, minus the RF sensor and likely an intraweapon datalink (though that is my personal inference and not something I've seen documented), is that the LRASM apparently has a different/modified radar altimeter to make it a sea skimmer. AGM-158A/B apparently fly pretty high, one online source I found listed 1600 feet as the lowest altitude.

I wonder if the main advantage of C3 isn't adding land attack capability so much as just reducing cost - if you have platform-weapon datalink (which LRASM has and I think the C3 retains) and it isn't jammed, you can talk the missile onto the target without any of the RF geolocation capability.

I wonder if that's the case (about hardware similarity) - the price difference is huge.
It strongly suggests different(and expensive) hardware, which may have really needed some certification work for land targets.

 

[Josh_TN]

I wonder if that's the case (about hardware similarity) - the price difference is huge.
It strongly suggests different(and expensive) hardware, which may have really needed some certification work for land targets.

The RF hardware is certainly unique. But the IIR sensor of the original weapon as far as I can tell could store eight 3D target models at once and have a selective aimpoint for each - I don't see what more would be needed to engage a ship. It seems to me the terminal guidance is more or less the same for the B and C versions, but the documentation does seem to treat them very differently and imply there is a trade off for one capability vs the other.

 

[Ainen]

The RF hardware is certainly unique. But the IIR sensor of the original weapon as far as I can tell could store eight 3D target models at once and have a selective aimpoint for each - I don't see what more would be needed to engage a ship.

The problem typically is not to engage the ship, but to find the ship in the area first.

Esp. when it doesn't really want to be found, the targeting data is outdated, and more. This is the part interesting to me personally - search-capable IR sensors tend to have visible physical optimizations (for obvious reasons), yet LRASM retained the smallish flat optical window of the original AGM-158B.
LRASM is known to rely on passive RF to get through it - but it assumes that the target emits in the first place.

There are, however, good reasons to not touch external shapes on stealth aircraft(missiles) - and the window part can be mitigated by introducing search patterns. Not the ideal solution, but it's a reasonable compromise.

Personally, i think that both the sensor and it backend behind the nosecone shall be significantly different. And likely it's them that constitute the majority of the price difference - there are literally no other candidates onboard to cost that much.

 

[Forest Green]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1707206937748901950

View: https://twitter.com/AirPowerNEW1/status/1707206937748901950?s=20

 

[Josh_TN]

Ah, thanks for that. That list does a great job summarizing which improvements are going to which model of B/D. The one improvement I thought I had read about that I don't see is a new coating, but in the one source that mentioned that it was attributed to the D model upgrade, so probably outside the M code change, all the AGM-158 upgrades are consolidated in the future D model.

Also good information concerning LRASM buys. The USAF buy still seems really anemic to me; that is enough for only 20 full B-1 loads. Perhaps the USAF is envisioning using the AGM-158B as a filler/decoy in B-1 operations? Two bays with JAASM A/Bs (A has similar range to C, though the flight characteristics may be to easy to differentiate) and one of LRASM to create a large volume of fire without relying on the sparse LRASM inventory?

The USN buy on the other hand seems more reasonable, especially considering how few weapons a CVW could reasonably be expected to deploy in any one strike.

 

[zjz]

Land Attack Capability Axed On AGM-158C LRASM Anti-Ship Missile

Development of the AGM-158C-3 variant, which will now remain purely focused on the anti-ship role, has also slipped some two years to 2026.

www.twz.com

 

[FighterJock]

So land based attack will just be left to the JASSM, JASSM-ER then? Though I think that it is sensible since the US Navy already has JASSM being used on the F/A-18.

 

[sferrin]

Don't blame them. A land-attack LRASM is called "JASSM".

 

[bring_it_on]

Don't blame them. A land-attack LRASM is called "JASSM".

I think the Navy wants a fully networked (LOS and BLOS) weapon so it would still be a JASSM borrowing from LRASM program. But the Air Force now has similar requirements so one of the upcoming variants begins to field that as well.

 

[Forest Green]

MACE will complement LRASM as a decoy/jammer/hitter:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1753472788839403705

View: https://twitter.com/AirPowerNEW1/status/1753472788839403705?s=20

 

[Josh_TN]

MALD-N is somewhere in this mix as well.

 

[Jimmo952]

What is the idea behind MACE? Get more missiles in the air for satuation attacks? More suitable for smaller targets?

Will this be used as a kind of MALD-like decoy for LRASM?

 

[TomS]

What is the idea behind MACE? Get more missiles in the air for satuation attacks? More suitable for smaller targets?

Will this be used as a kind of MALD-like decoy for LRASM?

It's really unclear to me. Does range "complimentary to LRASM" imply that it is similar to LRASM? Or does it mean that it it less, so that LRASM can be used on distant targets and MACE on closer ones? Either one is logically possible.

 

[Jimmo952]

It's really unclear to me. Does range "complimentary to LRASM" imply that it is similar to LRASM? Or does it mean that it it less, so that LRASM can be used on distant targets and MACE on closer ones? Either one is logically possible.

I get the impression that just like with LRASM, the Navy is being intentionally vague. That's probably smart.

Given the aggressive timelines, the Navy has probably already been working with Industry on this -- whatever it is.

 

[Josh_TN]

I think the Navy wants a fully networked (LOS and BLOS) weapon so it would still be a JASSM borrowing from LRASM program. But the Air Force now has similar requirements so one of the upcoming variants begins to field that as well.

I think the USAF is going to shift production to AGM-158D relatively soon, which is supposed to have an expanded capability against moving targets, including a data link of some kind (unclear if LOS or BLOS or both). I would imagine it would just use the same hardware as AGM-158C, since it is the same production line. I would think that would give them a decent shot at being able to engage a ship, but perhaps other hardware changes are necessary for that.

I find it very odd that LRASM would not be able to engage a land target - isn't building just a ship that does not move? I would think having a 3D model of the target would translate well from JASSM to LRASM and back again. It is surprising that any work at all would be involved making LRASM compatible for both, though I agree with the decision to focus on ship targets.

 

[Josh_TN]

What is the idea behind MACE? Get more missiles in the air for satuation attacks? More suitable for smaller targets?

Will this be used as a kind of MALD-like decoy for LRASM?

IMO "Get more missiles in the air for satuation attacks". I think the MALD-N serves the same purpose, but it can only function as a decoy/penaid since it is far too small to carry an effective terminal guidance and warhead. MACE seems to be MALD-N+ to me - larger swappable payload up to perhaps a large enough warhead to blind a ship with. Something you could not ignore even if you explicitly identified it as a lesser munition than LRASM.

I believe goal for both MACE and MALD-N is to not only dramatically increase the inventory of weapons for anti ship attacks but also, perhaps more importantly, increase the number of missiles a tactical aircraft can carry for a saturation attack. The CVW will be stretched providing defense and tanking for the carrier; it seems unlikely more than a squadron could be available for offensive actions unless multiple carriers were present in the same force. The issue of such a small strike is that the subsonic speed of most all USN weapons makes that last 25nm/45km really difficult to survive. MALD-N should easily fit on a BRU-55 tandem ejector, the outer pylon of the F-18, and potentially even the fuselage stations (it is lighter than AIM-120 but I don't know if the bolt pattern and connectors on those stations could support it). So an F-18 could have 2-4 extra MALD-Ns with a load out of LRASM or LRASM and drop tanks. And if you were willing to sacrifice range and ditch the wing tanks, you could carry 6-8 MALDs with a pair of LRASM. I suspect the goal for MACE is to also have it small/light enough to be carried in larger numbers on F-18s, in addition to internal carriage on F-35.

 

[Forest Green]

What is the idea behind MACE? Get more missiles in the air for satuation attacks? More suitable for smaller targets?

Will this be used as a kind of MALD-like decoy for LRASM?

A 75lb payload suggests multi-purpose, i.e. jammer or saturation attack against radars. MACE hits radar, LRASM hits VLS, ship sinks.

 

[bring_it_on]

It's really unclear to me. Does range "complimentary to LRASM" imply that it is similar to LRASM? Or does it mean that it it less, so that LRASM can be used on distant targets and MACE on closer ones? Either one is logically possible.

I doubt it given the threshold platform is only able to get so close to the threat so you are probably looking at up to 200 mile stand off range at a minimum. Lockheed Martin has presented a template for a design that could offer that range, accomodate that payload and still be in a form factor allowing 4 to be carried by F-35C internally.

 

[Josh_TN]

It's really unclear to me. Does range "complimentary to LRASM" imply that it is similar to LRASM? Or does it mean that it it less, so that LRASM can be used on distant targets and MACE on closer ones? Either one is logically possible.

I consider it more likely to be more or less matched to LRASM to allow concurrent use. It does not seem to explicitly be a kinetic munition, which makes me think the USN may intend for it to have ECM payload options. In that case, you would wait to be able to travel as far as the weapons it was escorting.

 

[bring_it_on]

$300K AUR cost kind of limits what payload options you are going to squeeze out. Kinetic seems the most logical.

 

[Josh_TN]

$300K AUR cost kind of limits what payload options you are going to squeeze out. Kinetic seems the most logical.

$300,000 I take to mean the base platform and not necessarily the payload cost as well. Swappable warheads/electronis/both seem to be the trend now. We shall see.

 

[Jimmo952]

This thing is small and light enough that it should be easily carryable by Navy and Marine helicopters.

I'm not saying that's the primary rationale for the new missile but it adds an interesting dimension.

 

[Scott Kenny]

This thing is small and light enough that it should be easily carryable by Navy and Marine helicopters.

I'm not saying that's the primary rationale for the new missile but it adds an interesting dimension.

Which suggests that MACE is no heavier than a Mk54 torpedo with parachute pack. 800lbs?

 

[Jimmo952]

Which suggests that MACE is no heavier than a Mk54 torpedo with parachute pack. 800lbs?

 

[Jimmo952]

Roughly 700-800 pounds is a good weight estimate.

 

[Josh_TN]

It is said to be 1,000 lb class with a 75 lb payload requirement…if we assume 750 lb or so, which seems likely, that seems to imply a high fuel fraction. Harpoon and Tomahawk are closer to 1/3 warhead : launch weight. What was the all up weight for Speedracer or Graywolf?

 

[bring_it_on]

What was the all up weight for Speedracer or Graywolf?

Not known though graywolf is longer than the speecracer demonstrator.

 

[TomS]

It is said to be 1,000 lb class with a 75 lb payload requirement…if we assume 750 lb or so, which seems likely, that seems to imply a high fuel fraction. Harpoon and Tomahawk are closer to 1/3 warhead : launch weight. What was the all up weight for Speedracer or Graywolf?

I assumed more like 500lb class, since two have to fit in an F-35 side bay.

Gray Wolf was roughly that size, maybe a bit bigger (one estimate here was ~700 lb with 200 lb of payload.) Just eyeballing it but I doubt two Gray Wolfs would fit in an F-35 bay (maybe if you leave out the AMRAAM?)

 

[bring_it_on]

I did a very rough comparison of graywolf and speedracer and the former is longer to a point where there is no way the F-35 will carry four internally. Speed Racer appears to be perfectly sized for that though.

 

[FighterJock]

What size is Speed Racer bring_it_on? Is it comparable to the SPEAR 3 or very slightly larger?

 

[red admiral]

What size is Speed Racer bring_it_on? Is it comparable to the SPEAR 3 or very slightly larger?

Much fatter it looks like but maybe similar length