DARPA Long Range Anti-ship Missile (LRASM)

Cross-posting from JASSM-XR:

Lot 18 JASSM sources sought mentions 40 JASSM-D missiles.

https://www.fbo.gov/index.php?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=ededbd9a7f9308da4fadaa052b7fcb73&tab=core&_cview=0

A Lockheed jobs posting had:

"Responsible for capture and successful execution of JASSM development programs, to include new
Wings and cross program missile control unit (MCU). Successful execution of these technology
upgrades is critical to the fielding of the next variant of JASSM (D Variant) and LRASM.


My emphasis but consistent with the inference from GAO's remarks upthread.
 

Attachments

  • lrasm-gao-2018.png
    lrasm-gao-2018.png
    168.2 KB · Views: 668
The air-launched, precision-guided missile program is working toward EOC on the Navy's F/A-18 in September 2019 as well. Meanwhile, the Air Force is assessing what is required to fly LRASM on the B-52 and will later create a certification schedule.
Click to expand...

https://insidedefense.com/daily-news/long-range-anti-ship-missile-reaches-eoc-b-1-after-slight-delay

The Air Force's B-52 appears to be another candidate to carry LRASM, after Congress appropriated an additional $10 million in the FY-19 defense spending bill to certify the missile on the 1960s-era bombers.

In an interview Wednesday, Air Force Weapons Program Executive Officer Brig. Gen. Anthony Genatempo said he anticipates the B-52 certification will happen in the next two years. But he indicated too much happening at once could slow LRASM certification.

The B-52 faces a slew of updates that will allow it to fly into the 2050s, including an active electronically scanned array radar modernization program to boost maritime strike capabilities, an effort to replace the aircraft's engines and the addition of other weapons like hypersonic missiles.

The Air Force needs to keep enough B-52s available for operations while also leaving enough test assets for the upgrades to move forward.

“The issue that we're seeing overall is that there are a lot of capability upgrades, not only to the B-52 but to systems that we're looking to use the B-52 as the major conveyance, and they're all starting to come together in the [2019] and [2020] time frame,” Genatempo said. “There are lots of activities going on with a very limited B-52 test fleet and we're working very closely with [Air Force] Global Strike Command to work through that.”

Dougherty said the military is still looking at requirements for adding LRASM to the B-52 and will create a certification schedule once that assessment is finished.

In the meantime, the Navy is continuing to study the capabilities it may need for a future missile under OASuW Increment 2. The service's original plans for that program were deferred in its FY-18 budget request, and it will continue procuring the baseline LRASM to shore up capabilities until a new weapon is available, according to a Government Accountability Office report published in April.

Congress approved $111 million for the Navy to buy 35 LRASMs in FY-19, 10 more than the service requested. The Air Force also received $54.4 million to purchase 15 missiles, three more than projected.

The Navy plus-up grows the program to 118 missiles through FY-21 for nearly $390 million. The Air Force is finishing its three-year procurement in FY-19, totaling 49 units for about $170 million. Each LRASM costs about $3 million.
Click to expand...

https://insidedefense.com/daily-news/lrasm-misses-b-1-early-capability-goal-officials-eye-b-52-integration
 
LRASM to be integrated on a USMC vessel (9:30 mark)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7bWk2wOWvTk
 
bring_it_on said:
LRASM to be integrated on a USMC vessel (9:30 mark)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7bWk2wOWvTk
Click to expand...

The quote is "one of the Marine Corps' mobile vehicles." I'd guess HIMARS, whihc has been mentioned as a possible antiship launcher before.
 
HIMARS would be too small for LRASM with a booster. I posted a video here, somewhere, where they've launched NSMs from a HIMETT

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

That would be big enough to do the trick.
 
Yeah, that might be necessary given how long LRASM is with the Mk114 booster. I think NSM would fit in a HIMARS (maybe even two-across) but I'd have to check dimensions.

Strictly speaking, that's a PLS, not a HEMTT (five axles vs four) but same idea. Probably would be an LVSR for the Marines, but also very similar.
 
Three OTA contracts for concept studies were awarded to Raytheon, Lockheed and Boeing in support of NMESIS.

FOR PROTOTYPE AGREEMENT NAVY/MARINE EXPEDITIONARY SHIP INTERDICTION SYSTEM (NMESIS) PHASE I - MILESTONE I - STUDY
Click to expand...

https://govtribe.com/award/federal-idv-award/other-transaction-idv-m678541891415
 
TomS said:
Yeah, that might be necessary given how long LRASM is with the Mk114 booster. I think NSM would fit in a HIMARS (maybe even two-across) but I'd have to check dimensions.

Strictly speaking, that's a PLS, not a HEMTT (five axles vs four) but same idea. Probably would be an LVSR for the Marines, but also very similar.
Click to expand...

Something like this:
 

Attachments

  • TEL.jpg
    TEL.jpg
    195.8 KB · Views: 230
Depends upon what variants and how much development the USMC wants to fund but the current NSM upgraded with a data-link would probably be the easiest option here without requiring too much development given that a coastal defense capability already exists. They could probably field a baseline capability and upgrade over time which should be able to add to the range once networked. LRASM would probably offer the best performance but likely also take the longest to field. I would go for the NSM now and fund a Maritime strike variant of the PrSM for the long term.
 

Attachments

  • NSM-Firex-662D43.png
    NSM-Firex-662D43.png
    431.1 KB · Views: 614
  • NSM-Encanistered.png
    NSM-Encanistered.png
    347.2 KB · Views: 585
https://breakingdefense.com/2019/01/marines-want-missiles-to-sink-ships-from-shores-and-they-want-them-fast/

Looking at NSM, LRASM, and Harpoon, on one of three existing platforms: HIMARS, the MTVR medium truck, or the LVSR heavy truck.
 
Lockheed receives LRASM second production lot

17th January 2019

Lockheed Martin has received a $172 million contract from the US Navy and US Air Force for the second production lot of Long Range Anti-Ship Missiles (LRASM), the company announced on 15 January.

The contract continues production for the air-launched variant of LRASM, including full production of missiles and engineering support.

LRASM is a precision-guided, anti-ship standoff missile based on the Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile - Extended Range. The air-launched variant provides an early operational capability for the US Navy’s offensive anti-surface warfare requirement.

The missile can detect and destroy specific targets within groups of ships by employing advanced technologies that reduce dependence on ISR platforms, network links and GPS navigation in electronic warfare environments.

https://www.shephardmedia.com/news/defence-notes/lockheed-receives-second-production-lot-contract-l/
 
Cross-posting from JASSM-XR:

Lot 18 JASSM sources sought mentions 40 JASSM-D missiles.

https://www.fbo.gov/index.php?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=ededbd9a7f9308da4fadaa052b7fcb73&tab=core&_cview=0

A Lockheed jobs posting had:

"Responsible for capture and successful execution of JASSM development programs, to include new
Wings and cross program missile control unit (MCU). Successful execution of these technology
upgrades is critical to the fielding of the next variant of JASSM (D Variant) and LRASM.


My emphasis and consistent with the inference from GAO's remarks upthread.
 

Attachments

  • lrasm-gao-2018.png
    lrasm-gao-2018.png
    168.2 KB · Views: 400
sferrin said:
Clear as mud. ???
Click to expand...
Just GAO saying upgrades developed and paid for under the JASSM-ER program may be incorporated onto LRASM if they are appplicable. Marauder's pointing out that the LockMart job listing affirms this by indicating work on -D will be applied to LRASM.
 
An RFI has been published for expanding the Analysis of Alternatives for the next step of the OASuW (previously named as OASuW Increment 2):
1. SUMMARY:
This announcement constitutes a Request for Information (RFI) of key capabilities, technical readiness levels, cost, schedule and risks associated analyzing the trade space for the Offensive Anti Surface Warfare (OASuW) AoA update. This update expands the Next Generation Land Attack Weapon AoA to include Naval TACAIR with the objective to inform DoN next generation strike weapon roadmaps.


The goal of this RFI is to provide industry an opportunity to inform the government of relevant information regarding maturity, manufacturability, sustainment, and affordability of existing and emerging technologies that may support future air launched Surface Warfare (SuW) and land strike capabilities in the 2030 timeframe. The study will examine the performance and cost trade space for this mission in the 2030 timeframe.
Click to expand...
Basically they're expanding the tent by bringing in TACAIR to help plan out their path forward, and asking the industry to submit proposals for a strike weapon system that covers the anti-surface and land attack roles across a range of platforms.
 

LRASM 1.1 enhances the range performance by adding the new wing design and meet “objective” performance requirements set by the Navy.

I also asked Steve Trimble whether this new wing design is adopted from JASSM-D or not, and he confirmed the wing is actually derived from JASSM-D program.
 
Last edited:
sferrin said:
Damn.
Click to expand...
There’s an AirPower study I can’t seem to locate that indicated a full on conventional air war over Taiwan the US was wanting a force that could hit something like 3000 aim points a day for three days dropping to 2000 a day for the next week with an 1000/day sustained campaign for the next 20 days.

40,000 targets first month of air war.
 
Lockheed Martin, NAVAIR and the U.S. Air Force will start working on the integration of LRASM on the B-52 following a budget allocation in FY 2019. In addition, fit checks of LRASM aboard the P-8A Poseidon MPA were carried out about a year ago.

www.navalnews.com

LRASM Gets Funding for B-52 Integration - Could Find its Way to the P-8A Eventually - Naval News

Lockheed Martin, NAVAIR and the U.S. Air Force will start working on the integration of LRASM on the B-52 following a budget allocation in FY 2019. In addition, fit checks of LRASM aboard the P-8A Poseidon MPA were carried out about a year ago.
www.navalnews.com www.navalnews.com
 
The buy of air-launch LRASM has also significantly increased.
 
They need to get larger cells than the Mk41 then (and not limit themselves to a couple modules on the Virginia fleet).
 
GARGEAN said:
Is strike length Mk.41 smaller than UKSK?
Click to expand...

The overall module is -- Strike-length Mk41 is just under 7.7m deep while UKSK is around 9.6m. And the UKSK module footprint bigger too -- 2.3m x 4.6m for 8 cells while Mk41 is about 2m x 3m. But I'm not sure what the internal canister sizes are, since UKSK has an odd cylindrical bit below decks that seems like it would limit module size.
 

Attachments

  • mk41_concept-mint184.jpg
    mk41_concept-mint184.jpg
    102.3 KB · Views: 69
  • DWtkMznW4AI80DR.jpg
    DWtkMznW4AI80DR.jpg
    111.1 KB · Views: 71

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom