DARPA Long Range Anti-ship Missile (LRASM)

[sferrin]

What are the chances that we will see usn use lrasm used from mk41 vls by 2022 or so?

Looks unlikely. The OASuW Increment 2 will now address air launched requirements only. It is likely that the US Navy will continue to fund the Tomahawk seeker upgrade for the early 2020s and use it for anti-ship purposes until the Next Generation Land Attack Weapon is developed.

https://news.usni.org/2017/08/16/navy-raytheon-close-finalizing-maritime-strike-tomahawk-missile-deal

A damn shame given LRASM would be much more likely to actually make it to the target.

 

[bring_it_on]

What are the chances that we will see usn use lrasm used from mk41 vls by 2022 or so?

Looks unlikely. The OASuW Increment 2 will now address air launched requirements only. It is likely that the US Navy will continue to fund the Tomahawk seeker upgrade for the early 2020s and use it for anti-ship purposes until the Next Generation Land Attack Weapon is developed.

https://news.usni.org/2017/08/16/navy-raytheon-close-finalizing-maritime-strike-tomahawk-missile-deal

A damn shame given LRASM would be much more likely to actually make it to the target.

...

Where they could have been by the early 2020s -

LRASM-B: THE SUPERSONIC SOLUTION THAT FAILED TO FLY:

Going back to the early days of the LRASM programme, DARPA's Tactical Technology Office originally received a total of nine proposals, with ATK, Boeing, Lockheed Martin and Raytheon all making submissions. Following an evaluation of the bids, it decided to place two separate Phase I contracts in mid-2009 with different businesses within Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control - Strike Weapons in Orlando, Florida, received USD10 million for an initial nine-month Phase I demonstration effort for what was originally known as LRASM-A; while Tactical Missiles in Grand Prairie, Texas, received a similar amount to pursue its LRASM-B concept.

In LRASM-A, Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control - Strike Weapons conceptualised a subsonic, stealthy and survivable long-range cruise missile that married the AGM-158B JASSM-ER missile with a suite of additional sensors and systems. LRASM-A has subsequently become the basis for the LRASM follow-on development effort now being pursued by DARPA and Lockheed Martin.

Tactical Missiles' LRASM-B was a very different beast. It took the form of a high-speed weapon capitalising on a legacy hybrid rocket/ramjet engine (originally built for the Martin Marietta AQM-127 Supersonic Low-Altitude Target) to create a high-flying supersonic cruise missile that DARPA characterised as having "balanced speed and stealth for robust performance".

Phase 1 LRASM activities completed in March 2010. An evaluation by an independent government assessment team provided the necessary confidence in both weapon designs to justify further investment for flight testing, giving the green light for follow-on Phase 2 contract awards in late 2010 to continue the development and demonstration of both missiles. Strike Weapons received a USD60.3 million contract for LRASM-A, while Tactical Missiles was awarded USD157.7 million for LRASM-B. A third Phase 2 contract award, valued at USD34 million, was made to BAE Systems Information and Electronic Systems Integration for the design and development of a common sensor suite to support both LRASM variants.

The original plan was for LRASM-A to execute two air-launched demonstrations leveraging its JASSM-ER heritage and demonstrating applicability to USN and USAF tactical aircraft employment, while LRASM-B would complete four vertical launch system demonstrations proving applicability to surface combatant employment.

In November 2011 Marotta Controls announced that it had been contracted by Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control to develop a pressure regulator for the LRASM-B missile fuel pressurisation system. This would regulate pressure from a helium storage vessel, which is in turn used to pressurise the missile fuel system. The regulator design, based on an internal relief valve to prevent over-pressurisation due to downstream pressure within the regulator, borrowed substantially from Marotta's pedigree in providing pressure regulators to NASA and industry primes for satellite, launch vehicle, and manned space flight applications.

However, the LRASM programme took a new twist in January 2012 when the LRASM-B effort was terminated. Instead, DARPA, citing the pressing need for a near-term capability, said it was "consolidating investments to focus solely on advancing LRASM-A technologies ... to reduce risk and expedite delivery of cutting-edge capability to the fleet". And so LRASM-B died before it could fly. "Back into the blue: LRASM honed for extended reach, precision punch"~ IDR

 

[seruriermarshal]

BAE Systems Begins Mass Production of LRASM Anti-Ship Missile Advanced Sensor

B)

 

[bobbymike]

https://scout.com/military/warrior/Article/Navy-Air-Force-Build-New-LRASM-Weapon-Sensor-Targeting-Tech-109820988

 

[seruriermarshal]

LRASM ;D

 

[sferrin]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UFkT8jWtVYs

 

[bobbymike]

I've seen a couple of videos like this but have never seen a top attack dive into a ship like you see in some JASSM videos. Is there a reason for this or would it have this capability? Is it to preserve the target ship? Would it make it an easier target for anti-ASM?

 

[LowObservable]

Given that the approach to the target will always be low-altitude, the pop-up might give the defenses too much time to react.

 

[sferrin]

Given that the approach to the target will always be low-altitude, the pop-up might give the defenses too much time to react.

Probably easier to see against the sky than against the clutter of the sea as well. (Though, as I recall, Harpoon does a pop up maneuver at the end, or did anyway.)

 

[marauder2048]

Though, as I recall, Harpoon does a pop up maneuver at the end, or did anyway.

So did TASM.

 

[DrRansom]

Maybe the Harpoon and TASM did a pop-up to maximize damage, I.e. Punching a hole downward into the ship rather than through it. But that would only be in the last seconds of flight. JASSM could have that capability too, it shouldn't expose the missile too much to point defenses.

 

[TomS]

The terminal pop-up is a hotly debated technique. It can help defeat some defenses and possibly improve damage (letting water in the bottom versus letting air in the top). Against other defenses, it just increases exposure and reduces the chance of reaching the target.

 

[marauder2048]

Was the terminal pop-up strictly about evasion/damage magnification?

Some of the literature was suggesting it was about improving seeker effectiveness (presumably against a target vessel turning into the missile).

Might still be a required tactic (though with a shallower pop-up) against target vessels employing IR signature reduction techniques.

lw/mw-10/270 -> midwave/longwave IIR seeker at 10m/270m altitude.

http://www.davis-eng.com/docs/papers/IR%20susceptibility%20of%20naval%20ships%20-%20SPIE%202010.pdf

From the developers of ShipIR/NTCS which is the NATO standard Naval IR prediction suite.

 

[seruriermarshal]

Lockheed Martin successfully fired production-configuration LRASM Long-Range Anti-Ship Missiles from a USAF B-1B bomber this AM on the Sea Range off Point Mugu CALIF. 2 LRASMs launched simultaneously against "multiple maritime targets,"

http://news.lockheedmartin.com/2017-12-12-Lockheed-Martins-Long-Range-Anti-Ship-Missile-Marks-Another-Successful-Flight-Test

 

[seruriermarshal]

;D

 

[Colonial-Marine]

Has there been any official consideration of resuming development of LRASM-B? I understand the trend these days is that everybody wants hypersonic speeds but a high-supersonic AShM could still be useful until then. I'd imagine that a land-attack variant of such a missile could also be a possibility.

 

[Airplane]

Can it be launched over land, far away from the shore? Does it have terrain following capability? I guess I am asking can it attack land targets?

 

[sferrin]

Can it be launched over land, far away from the shore? Does it have terrain following capability? I guess I am asking can it attack land targets?

Just use a regular JASSM for that.

 

[marauder2048]

Keep in mind that LRASM is ~2.5x the cost of a JASSM-ER and ~3.75x the cost of JASSM.
And they are only buying 130 rounds.

 

[SpudmanWP]

Krap... the ESM gear must be the bulk of that cost increase.

 

[sferrin]

Keep in mind that LRASM is ~2.5x the cost of a JASSM-ER and ~3.75x the cost of JASSM.
And they are only buying 130 rounds.

That does seem like an absurdly low number. I guess they can always extend it if they need to. ???

 

[sferrin]

Krap... the ESM gear must be the bulk of that cost increase.

I'm sure the low unit number doesn't help.

 

[NeilChapman]

Keep in mind that LRASM is ~2.5x the cost of a JASSM-ER and ~3.75x the cost of JASSM.
And they are only buying 130 rounds.

I'd have to agree w/Scott. LRIP-1 is 2.5x the cost of JASSM-ER. Doubt it will stay that much higher.

 

[SpudmanWP]

They are going to be $3 mil each through LRIP-4 (30-40 per year) at least. Given that they are making almost 10x the number of JASSM-ER's per year than LRASM, that also plays a big factor.

 

[marauder2048]

In the current POR, there is no FRP; they stay in LRIP (30 - 40 year) for a few years and that's it.

 

[NeilChapman]

They are going to be $3 mil each through LRIP-4 (30-40 per year) at least. Given that they are making almost 10x the number of JASSM-ER's per year than LRASM, that also plays a big factor.

Seems like a lot of LRIP batches. Is there a published IOT&E schedule? It would be interesting to understand how "effective" a smaller warhead would be on representative targets.

 

[SpudmanWP]

EOC (Early Operational Capability) for the USAF/USN in Q4-2018/Q4-2019.

http://www.dtic.mil/descriptivesum/Y2018/Navy/stamped/U_0604786N_4_PB_2018.pdf

 

[marauder2048]

They are going to be $3 mil each through LRIP-4 (30-40 per year) at least. Given that they are making almost 10x the number of JASSM-ER's per year than LRASM, that also plays a big factor.

Seems like a lot of LRIP batches. Is there a published IOT&E schedule? It would be interesting to understand how "effective" a smaller warhead would be on representative targets.

No IOT&E because they don't intend to proceed beyond LRIP.

I'd be interested in smaller warheads as well but it was hard enough to get the
JASSM Warhead/ESAF to meet the Navy's existing IM requirements.

 

[sferrin]

Why would you want a smaller warhead? ???

 

[TomS]

Why would you want a smaller warhead? ???

More room for fuel. LRASM has significantly less range than JASSM-ER -- the quoted figure is "more than 200 nm" versus 500 nm for JASSM-ER. If a smaller warhead could deliver sufficient lethality, it would let them push the range back up.

 

[sferrin]

Why would you want a smaller warhead? ???

More room for fuel. LRASM has significantly less range than JASSM-ER -- the quoted figure is "more than 200 nm" versus 500 nm for JASSM-ER. If a smaller warhead could deliver sufficient lethality, it would let them push the range back up.

I thought one of its selling points was its much larger warhead than Harpoon (1000lbs vs 500lbs). Also, considering warhead density is much higher than fuel, how much extra fuel is that going to give you anyway? And what would that do to the CG? If you have to throw in several hundred pounds of ballast to get the CG back to where it should be. . .

 

[bring_it_on]

More room for fuel. LRASM has significantly less range than JASSM-ER -- the quoted figure is "more than 200 nm" versus 500 nm for JASSM-ER. If a smaller warhead could deliver sufficient lethality, it would let them push the range back up.

I believe that "more than 200nm" comes from the LRASM-A requirements as framed by DARPA. I don't think that is very specific to the LRASM or lockheed has talked extensively about what the exact range is or elaborated on how that range is measured in terms of cruise altitudes, waypoints, threat avoidance/re-routing etc that it is capable of.

 

[TomS]

More room for fuel. LRASM has significantly less range than JASSM-ER -- the quoted figure is "more than 200 nm" versus 500 nm for JASSM-ER. If a smaller warhead could deliver sufficient lethality, it would let them push the range back up.

I believe that "more than 200nm" comes from the LRASM-A requirements as framed by DARPA. I don't think that is very specific to the LRASM or lockheed has talked extensively about what the exact range is or elaborated on how that range is measured in terms of cruise altitudes, waypoints, threat avoidance/re-routing etc that it is capable of.

Probably. But there's no question that adding the seeker to LRASM cost them fuel.

 

[sferrin]

More room for fuel. LRASM has significantly less range than JASSM-ER -- the quoted figure is "more than 200 nm" versus 500 nm for JASSM-ER. If a smaller warhead could deliver sufficient lethality, it would let them push the range back up.

I believe that "more than 200nm" comes from the LRASM-A requirements as framed by DARPA. I don't think that is very specific to the LRASM or lockheed has talked extensively about what the exact range is or elaborated on how that range is measured in terms of cruise altitudes, waypoints, threat avoidance/re-routing etc that it is capable of.

Probably. But there's no question that adding the seeker to LRASM cost them fuel.

Depends. Do we know if there was empty space in the missile prior? Did they swap one guidance system for another or is the new stuff in addition to what's already there? (I'd think they'd want to make use of the optical sensor in the nose for targeting.) We can make educated guesses but have they ever said anything official? They might say "more than 200nm" but according to the USN the official performance of the Virginias (or pretty much any SSN) is "more than 25 kts", so how valuable is the statement?

 

[TomS]

It seems unlikely there was a lot of unused volume previously (if there was, why not fill it with fuel or shrink the airframe?). We know there's a bunch of new electronics (based on the cost), which presumably did require some volume that they had to take from somewhere. Fuel is the obvious thing to cut.

 

[bring_it_on]

BAE has in the past highlighted the challenges involved in developing the seeker for DARPA. While specifics on the size and volume of the unique electronics is not mentioned (to the best of my knowledge) other than it being designed with very strict SWaP margins, they do mention that it weighs in at roughly 20 pounds.

BAE Systems has remained circumspect as to the techniques and technology embodied in the LRASM sensor package. The company states only that its “advanced mid-course sensor technology incorporates the company’s software and hardware capabilities designed for the world’s leading electronic warfare aircraft platforms”, adding, “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.”

However, Jane’s analysis suggests that the BAE Systems seeker solution is based on a miniaturised electronic support measures system incorporating sophisticated signal processing and geolocation functionality. This provides LRASM with the capability to detect, identify, and track targets within a complex tactical environment based on their RF emission characteristics. The LRASM air vehicle, based on the existing JASSM-ER missile, has received additional antenna apertures to support the RF sensor.

According to Joseph Mancini, BAE Systems’ LRASM programme manager, the mid-course sensor will help guide the missile from launch all the way in to determining the location of the target. By combining capabilities from other systems and packaging them to prosecute a new mission, BAE Systems has developed a new hardware configuration and a brand new technology, he told Jane’s . Furthermore, it is a programmable sensor so it can be adapted to meet the evolving threat.

The biggest challenge was to create a sensor with the right size, weight, and power (SWaP) to fit within LRASM, said Mancini. “This is a very highly constrained SWaP environment. We took and [reduced those components] down to a very small SWaP configuration for a missile system. We basically have taken our electronics down to a 20 lb package.” ~ Jane's Missiles & Rockets-2017

 

[sferrin]

The way it reads it sounds like they had to work within existing space rather than clearing something out to make room for it.

 

[Triton]

"Lockheed Martin Studying Integration of LRASM Anti-Ship Missile on USV Platforms"
SNA 2018 Show Daily News
Posted On Monday, 22 January 2018 23:33

Source:
https://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php/news/naval-exhibitions/2018/sna-2018/5877-lockheed-martin-studying-integration-of-lrasm-anti-ship-missile-on-usv-platforms.html

 

[seruriermarshal]

Lockheed Martin's Long Range Anti-Ship Missile Marks Sixth Successful Flight Mission

ORLANDO, Fla., March 19, 2018 /PRNewswire/ -- Lockheed Martin (NYSE: LMT) successfully tested a production-configuration Long Range Anti-Ship Missile (LRASM) from a U.S. Air Force B-1B bomber.

During the test, a B-1B from the 337th Test Squadron at Dyess Air Force Base, Texas, launched a LRASM over the Sea Range at Point Mugu, Calif., successfully impacting the maritime target and meeting test objectives.

"LRASM has now proven itself in six consecutive flight missions," said David Helsel, LRASM program director at Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control. "The reliability and outstanding capability of LRASM will provide an unmatched weapon to our warfighters in their quest for sea control in contested environments."

LRASM is designed to detect and destroy specific targets within groups of ships by employing advanced technologies that reduce dependence on intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance platforms, network links and GPS navigation in electronic warfare environments. LRASM will play a significant role in ensuring military access to operate in open ocean/blue waters, owing to its enhanced ability to discriminate and conduct tactical engagements from extended ranges.

LRASM is a precision-guided, anti-ship standoff missile based on the successful Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile - Extended Range (JASSM-ER). It is designed to meet the needs of U.S. Navy and Air Force warfighters in contested environments. The air-launched variant provides an early operational capability for the U.S. Navy's offensive anti-surface warfare Increment I requirement to be integrated onboard the U.S. Air Force's B-1B in 2018 and on the U.S. Navy's F/A-18E/F in 2019.

https://news.lockheedmartin.com/2018-03-19-Lockheed-Martins-Long-Range-Anti-Ship-Missile-Marks-Sixth-Successful-Flight-Mission?linkId=100000002082903#assets_20295_128436-117

 

[bobbymike]

http://aviationweek.com/defense/lockheed-ship-killer-could-show-path-hypersonic-missiles

Lockheed Martin’s Long Range Anti-Ship Missile (Lrasm) has conducted its sixth consecutive successful test flight as the Darpa-developed weapon heads toward initial operational capability by year’s end.

In the end-to-end test, the production-configuration missile was loaded onto a U.S. Air Force Rockwell B-1B at Dyess AFB in Texas and launched over the sea range off Point Mugu, California, to find and hit its maritime target.

Transition of Lrasm from the Pentagon’s advanced research agency to the U.S. Navy to meet an urgent operational requirement is being viewed as a potential model for fielding hypersonic weapons now under development by Darpa and the Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL).

“The transition of Lrasm from Darpa to the Navy has worked well and is a model we could follow,” says Frank St. John, executive vice president of Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control (MFC), which developed the anti-ship missile.

MFC is already working with Lockheed’s Skunk Works, which is under contract to Darpa and AFRL to begin flight testing two different air-launched high-speed missiles in 2019; the unpowered Tactical Boost Glide (TBG) and scramjet-powered Hypersonic Air-breathing Weapon Concept (HAWC). Lockheed is the sole contractor on TBG, while Raytheon is also working on HAWC.