DARPA Long Range Anti-ship Missile (LRASM)

Defense Updates has just put out a video concerning the P-8 Poseidon being armed with the LRASM:


Boeing, the manufacturer of the P-8, is collaborating with Lockheed Martin to integrate the Long-Range Anti-Ship Missile (LRASM) into the aircraft. Testing is currently in progress, and soon the enhanced aircraft will be available to the US Navy.
Click to expand...
The initial modification of the fleet aircraft is anticipated to be completed by January 2025. The P-8A will be equipped with four LRASM missiles mounted under its wings, as the missile is too large to be housed in the aircraft’s weapons bay.
Click to expand...
Jon Spore, Boeing senior business development representative for the P-8, said in a briefing with reporters during a visit to the company’s facilities in Jacksonville, Fla,“The testing is currently going well. We expect it to be done later this summer if all things continue as planned. And that’ll be yet another capability that the US Navy will have at its disposal,”
Click to expand...
In this video, Defense Updates analyzes why P-8 armed LRASM will add a much-needed punch to the US military?
Click to expand...
#defenseupdates #p8poseidon https://www.youtube.com/hashtag/lrasmhttps://www.youtube.com/hashtag/lrasm
Click to expand...
Chapters:
00:11 INTRODUCTION
02:04 P-8 POSEIDON OVERVIEW
04:07 P-8 IN ANTI-SHIP ROLE
05:34 LRASM
06:51 ANALYSIS
Click to expand...
 
Scott Kenny said:
I mean, LRASM is better than Harpoons (harder to intercept, most importantly), so I'm kinda surprised P8 integration hasn't happened sooner.
Click to expand...
Being superior means little if you don't have a sizable inventory. As LRASM inventories have grown (fielded and planned) so has the number of platforms that would be able to deploy it. That's a logical way to prioritize integration.
 
bring_it_on said:
Being superior means little if you don't have a sizable inventory. As LRASM inventories have grown (fielded and planned) so has the number of platforms that would be able to deploy it. That's a logical way to prioritize integration.
Click to expand...
P8s are extremely vulnerable in terms of detection range, so giving them a stealthy means of attacking surface ships would be a priority on my list.
 
Scott Kenny said:
P8s are extremely vulnerable in terms of detection range, so giving them a stealthy means of attacking surface ships would be a priority on my list.
Click to expand...
The Navy and the Air Force prioritized F/A-18 E/F and B-1B respectively as their primary platforms for the missile when they established the program. Makes sense since the SH was the main strike fighter component for the CVN and upgrading that capability made a ton of sense for the service. P-8, F-35 are all following/will follow now that the inventory has grown and slated to grow further. Seems like a logical way to field the capability knowing that initial batches of LRASM were rather small.
 
One question in regards to the P-8 and the LRASM, would they fit inside the P-8s weapons bay? If not then the only way is to carry them on the external hard points.
 
FighterJock said:
One question in regards to the P-8 and the LRASM, would they fit inside the P-8s weapons bay? If not then the only way is to carry them on the external hard points.
Click to expand...
I think it was already mentioned in the article that it only fits on the external hardpoints
 
FighterJock said:
One question in regards to the P-8 and the LRASM, would they fit inside the P-8s weapons bay? If not then the only way is to carry them on the external hard points.
Click to expand...
Still means they get 4x missiles per bird.

And in general, I wouldn't want to lose the ASW and rescue gear in the weapons bay for a "non-specific patrol" loadout. (Probably 3x torpedoes and 2x lifeboats, maybe 4x torps and 1x lifeboat)
 
Scott Kenny said:
Still means they get 4x missiles per bird.

And in general, I wouldn't want to lose the ASW and rescue gear in the weapons bay for a "non-specific patrol" loadout. (Probably 3x torpedoes and 2x lifeboats, maybe 4x torps and 1x lifeboat)
Click to expand...
LRASM under wings probably means it isn't a patrol sortie at all, rather a dedicated strike mission.
Anything else in this case is probably but parasitic weight.
 
Ainen said:
LRASM under wings probably means it isn't a patrol sortie at all, rather a dedicated strike mission.
Anything else in this case is probably but parasitic weight.
Click to expand...
4x LRASMs is likely a strike mission, but 2x might not be enough drag to greatly impact range for patrolling.

IIRC P3s used to pack Harpoons under wings all the time for patrol missions.
 
Scott Kenny said:
4x LRASMs is likely a strike mission, but 2x might not be enough drag to greatly impact range for patrolling.

IIRC P3s used to pack Harpoons under wings all the time for patrol missions.
Click to expand...
LRASM is a very expensive and quite a heavy weapon, with peculiar(capable, but rather specialized) seeker.
I frankly think that stand off ASCM isn't a right kind of weapon for this mission(maverick/sdb II is more use), and if needed - JSM is a better fit.
 
If LRASM is an expensive missile then I could only see it being used for special missions that needed that sort of weapon to be used.
 
Ainen said:
LRASM is a very expensive..JSM is a better fit
Click to expand...

JSM and LRASM are not that far apart in cost (to the US Air Force). Investing in JASSM/LRASM production increase makes a lot of sense as this feeds other needs (JASSM-ER, future potential XR, potential future HiJENKS follow-on) and given JASSM/LRASM platform integrations. Its not like you can buy 2 JSM's for a single LRASM or anything even remotely close to that.
 
FighterJock said:
If LRASM is an expensive missile then I could only see it being used for special missions that needed that sort of weapon to be used.
Click to expand...

Alternatively, you use it with a cheaper platform to achieve mass of fire at lower cost, like MALD-N. It has almost a tenth the cost and launch weight of LRASM, and on radar they are going to both look like sea skimming cruise missiles even without ECM.
 
Last edited:
bring_it_on said:
JSM and LRASM are not that far apart in cost (to the US Air Force). Investing in JASSM/LRASM production increase makes a lot of sense as this feeds other needs (JASSM-ER, future potential XR, potential future HiJENKS follow-on) and given JASSM/LRASM platform integrations. Its not like you can buy 2 JSM's for a single LRASM or anything even remotely close to that.
Click to expand...

I think 2:1 would probably be achievable with large purchases. But I agree that the price point is too close to be significant. There are a lot of private efforts and government programs aimed at reducing the cost of PGMs underway right now. Something like Baracuda 500 might achieve almost an order of magnitude lower costs. there is a reduction of capability and payload of individual weapons, but a larger number of networked effectors with various capabilities split across platforms instead of all systems duplicated on each missile could create much greater mass of fire for a given cost.
 
Josh_TN said:
I think 2:1 would probably be achievable with large purchases.
Click to expand...
The same applies to JASSM/LRASM. Its a chicken and egg problem. JSM is not cheap. It might get cheap if the AF invests a ton of money into increasing production capacity and orders more but until that happens, it nearly costs as much as the LRASM. Meanwhile, the AF and contractor are actually investing heavily in increasing JASSM/LRASM capacity to somewhere north of 1,000 missiles a year.
 
bring_it_on said:
The same applies to JASSM/LRASM. Its a chicken and egg problem. JSM is not cheap. It might get cheap if the AF invests a ton of money into increasing production capacity and orders more but until that happens, it nearly costs as much as the LRASM. Meanwhile, the AF and contractor are actually investing heavily in increasing JASSM/LRASM capacity to somewhere north of 1,000 missiles a year.
Click to expand...

Regardless of production rate, those weapons do not provide the cost breakthrough the DoD is looking for now. The desire is an order of magnitude less cost, with total price in the low to mid 100,000s. And it seems likely that several firms can achieve that, albeit with some performance compromises and the distribution of various kinetic, sensor, jamming, and communication abilities across multiple platforms.
 
21 March 2025

The Albanese Government has delivered on a commitment to significantly upgrade the Australian Defence Force’s (ADF) maritime strike capability following a successful live firing of the AGM-158C Long Range Anti-Ship Missile (LRASM).
The LRASM is now ready for operational use after the operational test, which was conducted by Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) F/A-18F Super Hornet off the coast of California last month, and supported by the United States Navy.

20250227raaf0000000_0007.jpg 20250227raaf0000000_0022.jpg 20250227raaf0000000_0042.jpg
 
Josh_TN said:
Chinese fishing fleets have operated as far away as western South America fishing illegally in other countries EEZs for at least a decade.
Click to expand...
Friend of mine was a Coastie, stationed up in Alaska in the early 1990s.

Half the time he was chasing Chinese ships out of 12nmi American territorial waters, nevermind the EEZ!
 
Josh_TN said:
Chinese fishing fleets have operated as far away as western South America fishing illegally in other countries EEZs for at least a decade.
Click to expand...

And countries such as Argentina have been busy sinking those fishing boats, I won't be surprised if the PLA:N is operating some of those "Trawlers".
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom