DARPA Long Range Anti-ship Missile (LRASM)

[GeorgeA]

Note also that the Navy is 100% poop-scared about the carriers right now. The sooner they can get a demonstrator working, the sooner they can proceed on (what I'm betting will be) a crash program for an operational LRASM. If they have a SLAT propulsion system that is, for all intents and purposes, "off-the-shelf", then propulsion is one less thing they have to worry about while getting the LRASM flying.


Besindes, the ASALM was state-of-the-art in its day, so you could just say the rest of the world has finally caught up.

 

[sferrin]

Its a limited test program on a shoestring budget, are you really surprised they raided the cupboard for existing hardware?

The intent is to flow into a usable weapon. ASALM had a tiny warhead for an antiship missile. They'd have been better off blowing the dust off Fasthawk.

 

[TomS]

I wouldn't be worried.



First of all, it's not hard to trade fuel versus warhead weight (see TLAM-C vs TLAM-N). And adding a couple of feet to a production version would be feasible within the MK 41 VLS envelope. Second, a W69 (the claimed warhead for ASALM) isn't all that light; we're still talking about 2/3 or more of the mass of an Exocet warhead. With an impact velocity around Mach 4, how much warhead do you really need?

 

[sferrin]

I wouldn't be worried.



First of all, it's not hard to trade fuel versus warhead weight (see TLAM-C vs TLAM-N). And adding a couple of feet to a production version would be feasible within the MK 41 VLS envelope. Second, a W69 (the claimed warhead for ASALM) isn't all that light; we're still talking about 2/3 or more of the mass of an Exocet warhead. With an impact velocity around Mach 4, how much warhead do you really need?

SLAT would probably be more representative of performance as ASLAM's was at altitude: 55 miles at Mach 2.5. You won't want to be trading away too much fuel for a bigger warhead.
http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-127.html

 

[TomS]

I believe LRASM-B is intended to be a maneuvering high-diver, so SLAT's low-altitude performance would not be indicative.

 

[AAAdrone]

I believe -B is intended to be a maneuvering high-diver, so SLAT's low-altitude performance would not be indicative.

Exactly. The LRASM-B was meant to be a "high, fast, and maneuverable" solution so I don't think it is your standard cruise missile.

 

[SpudmanWP]

Have a source on LRASM-B's flight profile?

 

[AAAdrone]

I just got it from here.

http://articles.janes.com/articles/International-Defence-Review-2010/DARPA-progresses-Long-Range-Anti-Ship-Missile-project.html.

 

[TomS]

Have a source on LRASM-B's flight profile?

This very thread. Sferrin's 6 August post quotes AvWeek: "The high-speed, high-altitude LRASM-B."

Same phrasing shows up in Defense Update (might be circular reporting):

And AvWeek has mentioned that LRASM-B builds off experience with RATTLRS, which was a high-altitude vehicle as well.

 

[sferrin]

Have a source on LRASM-B's flight profile?

This very thread. Sferrin's 6 August post quotes AvWeek: "The high-speed, high-altitude LRASM-B."

Same phrasing shows up in Defense Update (might be circular reporting):

And AvWeek has mentioned that LRASM-B builds off experience with RATTLRS, which was a high-altitude vehicle as well.

As I understand it RATTLRS was a failure. Any info to the contrary?

 

[TomS]

As I understand it RATTLRS was a failure. Any info to the contrary?

Experience =/= success. There are lots of ways an unsuccessful program could still inform another effort -- some subsystem that did work well, knowledge of what not to do, etc.

 

[SpudmanWP]

I wonder what the Pros/Cons of a plunging vs a wavetop attack profile are.

Pros:
1. Evasive terminal maneuver in 4 directions rather than 3.
2. Possibly time the detonation to happen under the ship (break its back)
3. Better target recognition (specific parts of the ship)
4. Better range (thinner air at higher altitudes)
5. Low RCS target shaping has reduced effectiveness.

Cons:
1. They can see you coming father off.


Any other ideas?

 

[AAAdrone]

I can't think of any other disadvantages off of the the top of my head. The LRASM-A appears to rely on stealth and sea-skimming flight altitudes to surprise the enemy while the LRASM-B relies on speed and maneuverability to overwhelm the enemy point defenses and to better identify the target in a GPS-denied environment. That second advantage would really help too. They could use a timed fuze so that the missile could detonate under the ship and induce hull failure that would split it in two.

 

[SpudmanWP]

New contract awarded to develop jam-resistant GPS receivers.

Designed to replace traditional GPS elements in airborne GPS/INS systems the NAVWAR Sensor will be compatible with existing embedded GPS receivers, and offer 10 meter CEP location accuracy even under heavy jamming.

http://defense-update.com/20111004_bae-systems-northrop-grumman-to-develop-anti-jam-navwar-sensors-for-the-u-s-air-force.html

 

[AAAdrone]

Still, I thought the purpose of LRASM was to be able to operate without the use of GPS and as such it operated completely autonomously.

 

[quellish]

Experience =/= success. There are lots of ways an unsuccessful program could still inform another effort -- some subsystem that did work well, knowledge of what not to do, etc.

LRASM is a joint Navy/DARPA program that grew out of RATTLRS. RATTLRS and LRASM were/are both funded from 0603114N.

RATTLRS was a tech development program, and did indeed develop and validate a number of things that apply to other high speed strike programs.

 

[sferrin]

Experience =/= success. There are lots of ways an unsuccessful program could still inform another effort -- some subsystem that did work well, knowledge of what not to do, etc.

LRASM is a joint Navy/DARPA program that grew out of RATTLRS. RATTLRS and LRASM were/are both funded from 0603114N.

RATTLRS was a tech development program, and did indeed develop and validate a number of things that apply to other high speed strike programs.

The YJ102 came out of a LONG line of research. Any idea how that fared? As I understand it they couldn't get it to perform reliably.

 

[sferrin]

I wonder what the Pros/Cons of a plunging vs a wavetop attack profile are.

Pros:
1. Evasive terminal maneuver in 4 directions rather than 3.
2. Possibly time the detonation to happen under the ship (break its back)
3. Better target recognition (specific parts of the ship)
4. Better range (thinner air at higher altitudes)
5. Low RCS target shaping has reduced effectiveness.

Cons:
1. They can see you coming father off.


Any other ideas?

Thing that concerns me is how is it's flight profile any different than that of AQM-37 that they've been shooting down since the 60s?

http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-37.html

 

[Moose]

Thing that concerns me is how is it's flight profile any different than that of AQM-37 that they've been shooting down since the 60s?

http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-37.html

I don't understand your concern. Yes, AQM-37 can hit Mach 5 in a full-power dive with its fins melting off, and Coyote handles the low-altitude sea-skimmer target work. However LRASM-B is not developing a better target, its testing a concept which could be applied to a production missile after it has run its course.

 

[bobbymike]

Good LRASM article in "Seapower Magazine" December issue page 18 to 20

http://www.seapower-digital.com/seapower/spsample/#pg20

 

[sferrin]

However LRASM-B is not developing a better target,

Obviously. It already failed at that.

its testing a concept which could be applied to a production missile after it has run its course.

And this makes a difference because. . . ?[/quote]

 

[seruriermarshal]

LRASM-A

 

[sferrin]

LRASM-A

AKA "JASSM"

 

[seruriermarshal]

LRASM-A

AKA "JASSM"

LRASM-A is anti-ship JASSM

 

[sferrin]

LRASM-A

AKA "JASSM"

LRASM-A is anti-ship JASSM

And that's a model. All they did was slap a different decal on it.

 

[TomS]

I think there may be a couple of subtle aerodynamic differences here -- the vertical tail fin looks smaller, for one. But yes, LRASM-A is explicitly a variant of JASSM-ER. The key differences will likely be internal anyway, since LRASM-A will need very different guidance from JASSM.

I'm not sure why you're so bent out of shape about it -- LRASM-A is intended to be more about the guidance technology anyway; using an existing airframe seems like a logical and economical approach.

 

[sferrin]

I think there may be a couple of subtle aerodynamic differences here -- the vertical tail fin looks smaller, for one. But yes, LRASM-A is explicitly a variant of JASSM-ER. The key differences will likely be internal anyway, since LRASM-A will need very different guidance from JASSM.

I'm not sure why you're so bent out of shape about it -- LRASM-A is intended to be more about the guidance technology anyway; using an existing airframe seems like a logical and economical approach.

I'm "bent out of shape" because we seem unable to design a decent antiship missile.

 

[TomS]

There's nothign wrong witht eh JASSM airframe as an anti-ship missile. The problem with US anti-ship missile programs have been 1) excess ambition and the usual gold-plating that leads to having to invent new airframes from scratch and 2) the fact that it's really not that much of a priority, because really, how many surface-launched anti-ship missile engagements has the USN actually had (two over the last 25 years, by my count). Compare with the number of surface targets put down by aircraft.

I think a lot of the hand-wringing about the lack of effective US antiship missiles is due to mirror-imaging. Other navies have expended lots of effort on AShMs because their main target (the USN) has really impressive air defenses that require high-performance missiles to penetrate. The US has for a long time faced adversaries with marginal air defenses, making air strikes a whole lot more viable. Combine with the US dominance in carrier air power and high-performance AShMs just weren't that important.

We may be on the cusp of that changing, but there still aren't many forces with robust naval air defenses and probably won't be for a decade or more. Even China has only a couple of really good air defense ships, compared to the US fleet where basically every major combatant is a high-end air defense shooter.

 

[sferrin]

There's nothign wrong witht eh JASSM airframe as an anti-ship missile. The problem with US anti-ship missile programs have been 1) excess ambition and the usual gold-plating that leads to having to invent new airframes from scratch and 2) the fact that it's really not that much of a priority, because really, how many surface-launched anti-ship missile engagements has the USN actually had (two over the last 25 years, by my count). Compare with the number of surface targets put down by aircraft.

I think a lot of the hand-wringing about the lack of effective US antiship missiles is due to mirror-imaging. Other navies have expended lots of effort on AShMs because their main target (the USN) has really impressive air defenses that require high-performance missiles to penetrate. The US has for a long time faced adversaries with marginal air defenses, making air strikes a whole lot more viable. Combine with the US dominance in carrier air power and high-performance AShMs just weren't that important.

We may be on the cusp of that changing, but there still aren't many forces with robust naval air defenses and probably won't be for a decade or more. Even China has only a couple of really good air defense ships, compared to the US fleet where basically every major combatant is a high-end air defense shooter.

For the most part I agree. My biggest issue is that trying to take down Aegis-like ships with bombs dropped from aircraft or Sub-Harpoons just doesn't strike me as effective (or even safe in the case of aircraft). IMO something like Fasthawk would have been perfect.

 

[Grey Havoc]

The old question; Have but not need, or need and not have (the latter often being fatal).

However, given the way the winds are blowing, I'd say both the USN and RN will need supersonic Anti-Ship missiles sooner rather than later (much sooner If I don't miss my guess).

It's a pity that, say, Raytheon or BAE haven't licenced this design to help speed up the development and deployment of new Anti-Ship missiles. Although LRASM-B is a step in the right direction. LRASM-A is arguably a cul-de-sac, on the other hand.

 

[TomS]

For the most part I agree. My biggest issue is that trying to take down Aegis-like ships with bombs dropped from aircraft or Sub-Harpoons just doesn't strike me as effective (or even safe in the case of aircraft). IMO something like Fasthawk would have been perfect.

Fasthawk versus AEGIS clone is a linear approach. The US has more options than that, like hitting the target with a combined volley of HARM and Harpoon from an alpha strike with organic escort jamming.

 

[sferrin]

For the most part I agree. My biggest issue is that trying to take down Aegis-like ships with bombs dropped from aircraft or Sub-Harpoons just doesn't strike me as effective (or even safe in the case of aircraft). IMO something like Fasthawk would have been perfect.

Fasthawk versus AEGIS clone is a linear approach. The US has more options than that, like hitting the target with a combined volley of HARM and Harpoon from an alpha strike with organic escort jamming.

That approach might have worked back in the 70's (in fact early HARM artwork shows it being used in just such a role against a Kresta II), but today HARM would likely be easily outranged by S-300+.

 

[Sea Skimmer]

HARM was demonstrated with a solid fuel ramjet a few years ago that ought to comfortably give it Meteor like range, and it was specifically designed to be a modular missile so an upgrade is very straightforward. Such a weapon might actually be fielded now that JDRADM is a dead duck. It may not out range those 250 mile class SAMs Russia is working on, but it doesn't really need to do so, it just needs to go comfortably over the radar horizon of the firing ship. Something much further away can provide cueing, potentially even satellites in a future war. If the enemy fields something like the E-2/SM-6 combo meanwhile, blow away the E-2 clone first to force the launch ship to turn on its own radar. The latest AGM-88E has MMW radar in the nose as well to provide a terminal, if short ranged, active seeking option. Anyway, as has been said with aircraft lots of options exist. Before Harpoon or HARM even appeared Sparrow was basically capable of defeating any ship around… and did in one case.
I suspect part of the reason why a JASSM option is being worked on is it would be far more exportable then anything hypersonic, never mind the massive cost and risk advantages. The US has limited need of anti ship missiles, but a lot of its allies have lots of over aged Harpoons that can't live forever.

 

[sferrin]

HARM was demonstrated with a solid fuel ramjet a few years ago that ought to comfortably give it Meteor like range, and it was specifically designed to be a modular missile so an upgrade is very straightforward. Such a weapon might actually be fielded now that JDRADM is a dead duck.

I think you might be confusing a few projects.
Originally the HARM AARGM upgrade included the solid fuel ramjet. See Reply #1 here:

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,3411.msg41606.html#msg41606

The HARM propulsion upgrade is there in the second picture (AARGM2.jpg) the one tested from the RPV F-4 Phantom a few years ago was different (same post, last two pics).

 

[Moose]

F/A-18s launching HARMs will come in on the deck under a cloud of jamming from Prowlers/Growlers and (in the near future) a salvo of MALD-Js. They'll get close enough.

 

[sferrin]

F/A-18s launching HARMs will come in on the deck under a cloud of jamming from Prowlers/Growlers and (in the near future) a salvo of MALD-Js. They'll get close enough.

China plans on equipping it's carriers with E-2D analogs so there won't be any flying under the radar.

 

[Moose]

Hope their jamming gear is good, AMRAAMs love to blow up slow planes with giant RCS.

 

[sferrin]

Hope their jamming gear is good, AMRAAMs love to blow up slow planes with giant RCS.

Pretty sure it would be able to vector a fighter their direction LONG before the Hornet was in AIM-120 range.

 

[Moose]

 

[sferrin]

Would have looked cooler like this: