Long Range Anti-Ship Missile

Read the forum code of contact

Member for

19 years 9 months

Posts: 12,109

DARPA Expands Anti-Ship LRASM to Surface Launches

http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx?plckBlogId=Blog:27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3a9d8b2247-6370-4103-9ee2-0fecfa2beed2

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/content/lockheed/us/news/press-releases/2013/march/mfc-030413-LM-Receives-71million/_jcr_content/content_image/image.img.jpg/1362512134367.jpg

Current surface-launched, anti-ship missiles face a challenge penetrating sophisticated enemy air defense systems from long range. As a result, warfighters may require multiple missile launches and overhead targeting assets to engage specific enemy warships from beyond the reach of counter-fire systems.

To overcome these challenges, the joint DARPA - Navy Long Range Anti-Ship Missile (LRASM) program is investing in advanced technologies to provide a leap ahead in U.S. surface warfare capability. The LRASM program aims to reduce dependence on intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) platforms, network links, and GPS navigation in electronic warfare environments. Autonomous guidance algorithms should allow the LRASM to use less-precise target cueing data to pinpoint specific targets in the contested domain. The program also focuses on innovative terminal survivability approaches and precision lethality in the face of advanced counter measures.

The LRASM program began in 2009 to ensure that the United States leads technology advancement for best-in-world operational Anti-Surface Warfare capability into the future. The program, currently in the second of two phases, initially focused on technology for two variants, the LRASM-A and LRASM-B. LRASM-A leverages the state-of-the-art Joint Air to Surface Standoff Missile Extended Range (JASSM-ER) airframe and incorporates additional sensors and systems to achieve a stealthy and survivable subsonic cruise missile. Designs for LRASM-B focused on operating at the other end of the spectrum for precision strike weapons—high-altitude and supersonic speed over stealthy penetration.

Working in close collaboration with the Navy to provide warfighters a capability that can make a difference at sea in the near term, DARPA decided in January 2012 to focus solely on technology development for LRASM-A, ceasing development of LRASM-B. By consolidating investments to focus solely on advancing LRASM-A technologies, DARPA aims to reduce risk and expedite delivery of cutting-edge capability to the fleet.

DARPA began captive carry flight tests of LRASM sensors aboard a research aircraft in May 2012. The first captive carry test aboard a modified Sabreliner business jet successfully demonstrated all elements of the integrated sensor suite, including sensing and fuzing targets and validation of the geolocation algorithm. The sensor suite performed as planned, paving the way for additional captive carry tests in increasingly complex simulated scenarios through the remainder of 2012 and beginning of 2013.

DARPA originally scheduled two air-launched flight demonstrations for early 2013. In March 2013, DARPA increased the scope of the program to include a third flight to further mature key technologies in preparation for transition opportunities. Captive carry events will continue over the next several months, with the first live-fire exercise slated for Summer 2013.

Additionally, DARPA has begun an effort to integrate the LRASM for launch from a surface vessel. In support of the Office of the Secretary of Defense, DARPA is addressing the long-lead developmental tasks including modifications to the missile airframe, design of the booster separation system and development of a new hybrid canister to accommodate the LRASM. DARPA also plans to address surface-launched risk reduction (SLRR) issues. Two ballistic test surface launches are planned for the end of 2014.

The LRASM program is on track to deliver an advanced prototype weapon to the Navy and Air Force with capability for challenging future operational environments, while being sufficiently mature to transition rapidly to an acquisition program to address near-term operational challenges.

Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control (LMMFC) Strike Weapons, Orlando, Fla., is the performer for the demonstration of the LRASM weapon, and BAE Systems, Information and Electronic Systems Integration, Nashua, NH, is the performer for the design and delivery of onboard sensor systems.

http://www.darpa.mil/Our_Work/TTO/Programs/Long_Range_Anti-Ship_Missile_(LRASM).aspx

Original post

Member for

19 years 9 months

Posts: 12,109

2013: Expected 3 air-launched demonstrations from a B-1 ..
2014: 2 Land tests

LRASM B: Deffered by DARPA, May be taken up by the navy and/or DARPA at a later date :

Ramjet, Supersonic AShM
[ATTACH=CONFIG]216721[/ATTACH]

LRASM A: High Subsonic , based on the 500nm ranged JASSM-ER

[ATTACH=CONFIG]216722[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]216723[/ATTACH]

Attachments

Member for

10 years 11 months

Posts: 113

The ramjet version has been cancelled?
What are those red "pop up threats" in the video?

Member for

15 years 2 months

Posts: 5,197

It's the missile detecting SAM assets that are a threat to it finishing its mission.

Member for

24 years 2 months

Posts: 5,396

The ramjet version has been cancelled?
What are those red "pop up threats" in the video?

The red half-sphere is the volume of space where the ship's on-board sensors would have the ability to detect and kill a stealthy missile. But because the missile is stealthy, it can stay outside the ship's detection radius while observing the ship with its own RWR and EOIR seeker. This allows the missile to maneuver into optimal position for that final dash to the target.

Member for

19 years 9 months

Posts: 12,109

The ramjet version has been cancelled?

Although in official publications the word they used is "DEFERRED" but for all practical purposes it is and they are concentrating on long range, high subsonic stealthy missile...I think it was deemed too expensive to develop and procure while the A version was still considered potent enough to deal with all emerging threats (hence its design). The Target for the A version is , to be less then 1 million a missile...The B version would have cost many many times that...I think it is wise to cancel the LRASM - B variant, based on pictures it is a TOTALLY NEW design compared to the initial efforts to leverage the JASSM_ER Maturity...If that is the case, then we are already spending research money in the Prompt strike program(s) so any technology (Hypersonic) developed there can be leaveraged for future use..I do not think the USN really wants a High supersonic or hypersonic AShM missile anyhow, a maneuverable, long range Stealthy, LRASM that has high survivability in A2AD environments and is intelligent t enough with high degree of autonomy is what they are looking for...If this sees the light of day, the JASSM program as a whole can adopt a lot of technology developed..So everyone wins..

What are those red "pop up threats" in the video?

Since its launched from long distances, the missile constantly updates its threat areas and A2AD environment...A pop up threat is one which was not known earlier but was discovered during flight by the on board sensors of the weapon.

The best part about using the JASSM_ER is stealth and range....the basic JASSMER is 500nm range...Even with addition of more systems etc the 200nm range requirement for the LRASM should be obliterated by the LRASM..

The extended-range JASSM variant has a reach of more than 500 nautical miles compared to the 200 nautical mile range of the baseline version.

http://www.airforcemag.com/DRArchive/Pages/2012/August%202012/August%2009%202012/JASSMEROperationalTestingNearsCompletion.aspx

@Djcross : What are the proposed Tomohawk and Harpoon variants that will potentially compete with the LRASM?

Product brochure from LM : http://lockheedmartin.com/content/dam/lockheed/data/mfc/pc/lrasm/mfc-lrasm-pc.pdf

testing and launch is expected this year..

Member for

10 years 10 months

Posts: 174

how about a long range missile with 200 miles? bet impossible :D

Member for

19 years 9 months

Posts: 12,109

[ATTACH=CONFIG]218865[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH=CONFIG]218866[/ATTACH] [ATTACH=CONFIG]218880[/ATTACH]

B-1 test squadron demonstrates anti-ship missile

This is a big stepping stone toward fielding an anti-surface warfare cruise missile," said Maj. Shane Garner, 337th TES. "However, at the end of this program, this particular missile is not going to be a fielded weapon; it's what we call a technology demonstrator. The point of this program isn't to field a missile, but to demonstrate the new technologies they want to put into an anti-surface warfare JASSM variant."

Because the LRASM leverages the state-of-the-art JASSM-ER airframe, it proved to be a seamless transition for the B-1 in terms of compatibility, significantly reducing the time and costs associated with traditional weapons testing.

"When the B-1 looks at this missile it just reads it as a JASSM-ER," said Capt. Alicia Datzman, 337th TES. "In turn, DARPA was able to exploit that capability and simply add on the new technology to expedite the cost. Currently, JASSM officials are doing everything they can to take this missile's technology and move it into a program that would eventually become operational."

However, while the LRASM does utilize the airframe of the JASSM-ER, it incorporates additional sensors and systems to achieve a stealthy and survivable subsonic cruise missile as well as a weapon data link and an enhanced digital anti-jam GPS to detect and destroy specific targets within a group of ships.

"One of the biggest improvements of this weapon is its ability to receive target or coordinate updates in-flight," Garner said. "Unlike the JASSMs 'fire and forget' mentality, this new technology gives you the chance to 'fire and change your mind.' Because of the standoff feature these weapons possess, they tend to be in-flight for some time. For us to be able to change its coordinates on the fly provides us with a large range of flexibility."

The overarching concept behind the B-1's rise in the maritime environment can be attributed to the Department of Defense's much discussed Air-Sea Battle concept, in which long range bombers serve as a key tenet.

ASB is designed to guide the four branches of the armed forces as they work together to maintain a continued U.S. advantage against the global proliferation of advanced military technologies and anti-access/area denial capabilities.

Furthermore, should the LRASM technology be fielded into a variant of the JASSM-ER, the B-1 presents itself as a premier platform to carry the weapon, as it is currently capable of carrying 24 of the long range missiles, tops across all Air Force platforms.

http://www.acc.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123355913

LRASM In VLS:

[ATTACH=CONFIG]218873[/ATTACH]

Attachments

Member for

12 years 1 month

Posts: 4,168

Many moves of anti surface missiles atm, marine variant of Scalp doing succesful tests atm also (1000 + Kms range)

Member for

19 years 9 months

Posts: 12,109

This is strictly a DARPA funded tech demonstration, of what can be achieved in a relatively short period of time. Its not built around any USN requirement, other than briefly trying to work with the USN, to see what would be a nice capability to have...Like the Storm Shadow/Scalp, and JASSMER it would all come down to the capability, especially against a very very capable enemy. The US has china in mind here, so really has to find a way to get a missile that can really be competitive against long wave radars, multiple sensors both active and passive, and an evolving missile defense capability. The surest way is to develop a ton of capability in such a weapon and do it at about a million $ a pop. Would be tough, especially if you add things like they are wanting to do here (GPS denied , RF denied Environs etc etc data links and ISR relay etc etc).....The other are where you can do very well, is to nail down and track your ships out in the ocean via space based assets, both IR (SBIR) and through regular tracking via satellites, that would mean you'd have plenty of time to prepare against anything that may be getting a bit too close.

Once the USN floats a formal request for a new ASM (if and when that happens), i am sure Raytheon/Aerojet would want to throw a FAST sea skimmer into the mix as well, In fact The LRASM-B (no cancelled) was to test that out, but i guess its too much to do for DARPA without a formal RFP document from the navy. I guess anything is better than the HARPOON but the Navy's request is likely to reflect the Pacific, and as such it would be a tough missile to develop, produce and filed in terms of capability & cost....A 1000 km Stealthy Cruise missile is not going to be very challenging, given you have enough ISR around your ship to actually make use of that range in proper time. A 1000 km, Ramjet powered missile on the other hand, is going to be very challenging both in terms of cost and size.

Member for

19 years 9 months

Posts: 12,109

Perhaps the Western navies, should get together to have a fast , expensive, long range AShM ...

Mach 4-5 Top speed, 250nm+ Range...

[ATTACH=CONFIG]218981[/ATTACH]

While the expense may not be justified for one navy, getting together and having a robust acquisition program can really bring costs down. The LRASM_B may well be considered by the USN in the future, but the cost associated with developing and procuring of really FAST Ramjet/Scramjet weapons is whats going to be holding everybody back. However if you could have missiles like the LRASM--A , and Scalp as your BULK weapon, and acquire the fast missiles in lesser amounts, you may build up a better overall anti ship capability.

Attachments

Member for

24 years 2 months

Posts: 4,875

Perhaps the Western navies, should get together to have a fast , expensive, long range AShM ...

Mach 4-5 Top speed, 250nm+ Range...

[ATTACH=CONFIG]218981[/ATTACH]

While the expense may not be justified for one navy, getting together and having a robust acquisition program can really bring costs down. The LRASM_B may well be considered by the USN in the future, but the cost associated with developing and procuring of really FAST Ramjet/Scramjet weapons is whats going to be holding everybody back. However if you could have missiles like the LRASM--A , and Scalp as your BULK weapon, and acquire the fast missiles in lesser amounts, you may build up a better overall anti ship capability.

Aren't we in danger of putting the cart before the horse to a very large extent here?!. Just as the old opposition found with their big very long range antiship missiles the issue is in getting verified targets for them in the first place. What limited them will be every bit as limiting for 'us'. I'm not seeing any recent, significant, evolutions in US/NATO deployed naval ISTAR sufficient to enable organic VLR antiship shots...unless I've missed something significant?. I appreciate the intelligence is being built into new generation weapons to avoid non-combatant strikes etc, but, are we going to have RoE's that allow shots on non-POSID targets and, even if we were, would we gamble on wasting missiles in that fashion?.

Member for

19 years 9 months

Posts: 12,109

Thats what i wonder as well when i see such LONG ranges (1000 km) being cited for the LRASM, and SCALP..I guess with an integrated net-centric approach it may be possible in the 2020+ environment to effectively bring ISR and SA to a level where such long ranges could be tactically possible. Or it could simply mean that the developers are pre-empting and leaving plenty of growth space for future capability...Given that the USN has insisted on the ISR centric capability of the UCLASS, one can deduce that they are looking for persistent 24x7 ISR around 1000nm from a carrier....Perhaps this along with SAT based assets, Triton and other onboard and offboard sensors can help in gaining enough SA to lob missiles at those stand off ranges.

Member for

20 years 6 months

Posts: 291

Thats what i wonder as well when i see such LONG ranges (1000 km) being cited for the LRASM, and SCALP..I guess with an integrated net-centric approach it may be possible in the 2020+ environment to effectively bring ISR and SA to a level where such long ranges could be tactically possible. Or it could simply mean that the developers are pre-empting and leaving plenty of growth space for future capability...Given that the USN has insisted on the ISR centric capability of the UCLASS, one can deduce that they are looking for persistent 24x7 ISR around 1000nm from a carrier....Perhaps this along with SAT based assets, Triton and other onboard and offboard sensors can help in gaining enough SA to lob missiles at those stand off ranges.

I gather from the above discussion that the main challenge is to identify the target - when the missile is fired from long distance.

- How does the China's "carrier-killer" missile works then?

- Also is it possible to track/identify the target from space, especially given that ships have huge sizes and move very slowly? Can drones be used for this purpose also.

- What is a reasonable range for naval missiles in today's state-of-the-art?

Member for

19 years 9 months

Posts: 12,109

Although not a Naval expert, i can chip in with my 2 cents.

The main challenge to any OTH targetting and engagement is to first and foremost detect the naval vessel OTH, and then launch a weapon that takes time to reach its destination, time during which the ship would have moved and taken evasive manuevers (possibly)...This requires long range tracking and that is challenging for most at very long ranges. Space based assets, Manned/Unmanned ISR assets will obviously help here, and you need a very complex & integrated network to successfully engage targets at those ranges.

- How does the China's "carrier-killer" missile works then?

I believe the DF21(the weapon you are reffering to) is a MRBM, and as such much different then the missiles being discussed. The challenges of accurately cueing the ballistic missile still remain, however the chinese do have Satellites tasked for such a mission over the pacific, and according to some sources those satellites can scan the pacific using a SAR. With UCAS's being developed activly, the chinese also do intend on developing ISR capability over the pacific in order to realize the maximum potential of their ballistic missile.

- Also is it possible to track/identify the target from space, especially given that ships have huge sizes and move very slowly? Can drones be used for this purpose also.

Ships can and ARE tracked through space, using Radar, Imaging, and IR based sensors, as well as using both manned and unmanned assets such as P-3, Triton, P8's etc

- What is a reasonable range for naval missiles in today's state-of-the-art?

Out of the missiles being widely used today some are:

Harpoon : 50-70 m
Exocet : 50-100 m
Brahmos: 180 m ( Mach 2.8 )
Joint Strike Missile : 150-200 miles

As mentioned, these 2 new weapons are quite a bit more capable in terms of pure range , although subsonic i guess they can be launched at shorter ranges with a vast majority of flight profile at low altitude /sea skimming profile.

Member for

13 years 5 months

Posts: 9,579

Brahmos is treaty limited mind you.
If we bring in Yakhont, real range is 500+km. One wonders if the Indians would stay "treaty limited" with their missiles if war broke out, I would bet not. But that is another story. Declared and actual range are typically pretty varied for Russian AShMs.

The RuNavy's most common system on new ships is Kalibr (domestic Klub). The supersonic (final stage) Anti-ship missile of the complex was stated as having 375 km range ( 220 km for export Klub).

Member for

19 years 9 months

Posts: 12,109

Thanks, the point being that with potential 1000+ Km ranged weapons, we are dealing with a lot of range compared to previous generation, that puts a burden on ISR and targeting especially if these long ranges are to be realized in a realistic scenario.

Member for

13 years 5 months

Posts: 2,120

Here's a question that's kind of related.

I've seen statements that Chinese C802 missiles have a range of 180 km and C803 have a range of up to 300-400 kms.

Has there been any confirmation of this? It makes these missiles equivalent or better than many Western ones in terms of range.

I didn't think Chinese had any great proficiency in engines, let alone over West.

Also do Chinese have required target acquisition systems for OTH launches, esoecially if such missiles are deployed from a fighter aircraft?

Member for

15 years 4 months

Posts: 6,983

The logical thing to do is placing their own SOSUS in areas where it count

Member for

13 years 2 months

Posts: 1,299

Here's a question that's kind of related.

I've seen statements that Chinese C802 missiles have a range of 180 km and C803 have a range of up to 300-400 kms.

Has there been any confirmation of this? It makes these missiles equivalent or better than many Western ones in terms of range.

I didn't think Chinese had any great proficiency in engines, let alone over West.

Also do Chinese have required target acquisition systems for OTH launches, esoecially if such missiles are deployed from a fighter aircraft?

C-802 and 803 are export designations for a YJ-82, which has a minimum range of 180km. There may be variants with upgraded range and performance but that is the "standard version" people refer to.

The super long range AShM you are thinking of is YJ-62, a tomahawk sized heavy anti shipper with a range of over 400km (280 km for export version). Basically it is similar to TASM. So I would not say that china has any proficiency of small turbofan engines over the west, but rather the US and Western Europe has rested on the laurels of harpoon, Exocet as their main anti shipping weapons (perhaps intending to rely on carriers as the main hitting force of a fleet).

We see signs of this changing, with the LRASM of course which is basicsally a stealthy, subsonic YJ-62 with multiple sensor types, but china isn't staying still either, as we've recently seen the "4,4" anti shipper YJ-12, a ramjet missile with a max speed of Mach 4 and 400 orange (although more conservative sources say 280 range, Mach 3 speed). Then there's the YJ-18, a new generation subsonic AShM which nobody quite knows what it looks like...