USN's New Anti-ship Missile

[tomahawk6]

No it isnt the repurposed SM6,rather its the Long Range Antiship Missile the LRASM.I like the concept launch the weapon and it will have autonomous guidance.The range of 200 nm should help in places like the South China Sea.

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/the-us-navys-new-long-range-anti-ship-missile-just-got-even-16469

The LRASM, which is 168-inches long and 2,500 pounds, is currently configured to fire from an Air Force B-1B bomber and Navy F-18 carrier-launched fighter. The current plan is to have the weapon operational on board an Air Force B-1B bomber by 2018 and a Navy F-18 by 2019, Navy statements have said.

With a range of at least 200 nautical miles, LRASM is designed to use next-generation guidance technology to help track and eliminate targets such as enemy ships, shallow submarines, drones, aircraft and land-based targets.

 

[Lumber]

"With a range of at least 200 nautical miles, LRASM is designed to use next-generation guidance technology to help track and eliminate targets such as enemy ships, shallow submarines, drones, aircraft and land-based targets."

I realize this is from the article, but...

It's an Anti-Ship missile... why would it be used against aircraft at all, let alone a drone! Talk about overkill...

 

[tomahawk6]

I too find it odd,as both the Navy and USAF have long range AA missiles.Here is another article on the topic.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a19624/the-navys-new-missile-sinks-ships-the-smart-way/

 

[Lumber]

Your first article stated that it doesn't have a ship-borne launching system, but the second article states that it can be fired from standard VLS.

Given the design of new warships, which lack external weapons mountings (as much as can be), I predict that the USN would lean toward something that can fit in a VLS.

Which makes me wonder if this missile really can. Compare:

The ship-launched Harpoon weighs 1500lbs and is 15 ft long (longer than the air-launched version because of the required for a rocket-booster).
The AGM-158, on which the LRASM is based, is 2250lbs, and is 14 ft long, so we can assume that a ship-launched LRASM would be about 16-17ft with a rocket booster, and weigh slightly more (until the booster detaches).

By comparison, the SM-6 is over 3000lbs and over 20ft long, so there is no reason, that I can find, that a LRASM couldn't be fire from a Mk41 VLS. I can't find the LRASM's diameter, but a Tomahawk is over 20inches. The LRASM, from the pictures at least, does have an odd-shape to it, which might preclude it from fitting in a Mk41...

 

[Kirkhill]

I realize this is from the article, but...

It's an Anti-Ship missile... why would it be used against aircraft at all, let alone a drone! Talk about overkill...

It may not make sense to expend 1000 lbs of HE against a drone, but on the other hand, I'm guessing that an autonomous missile is probably going to need to know what it is sharing airspace with.

 

[Kirkhill]

Some related articles - the LRASM is actually the COMPETITOR TO (Oops!  :-[)  Kongsberg NSM which was configured explicitly to fit in the weapons bay of the F35.

http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php/focus-analysis/naval-technology/2328-exclusive-new-details-on-the-kongsberg-vertical-launch-joint-strike-missile-vl-jsm.html

http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php/focus-analysis/naval-technology/2328-exclusive-new-details-on-the-kongsberg-vertical-launch-joint-strike-missile-vl-jsm.html

http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php/news/defence-news/year-2014-news/october-2014-navy-naval-forces-maritime-industry-technology-security-global-news/2075-kongsberg-showcased-a-vertical-launch-joint-strike-missile-vl-jsm-during-ausa-2014.html

Here's a video of the Lockheed DARPA LRASM launching vertically

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kl4ffgPu6qc

 

[MarkOttawa]

USAF B-1Bs with LRASMs to Guam, PLA Navy in mind:

B-1 Bomber May Become the New Face of US Military Power in the Pacific

The Air Force's B-1B Lancer bomber is about to move front and center in the U.S. military's power-projection mission in the Pacific.

As part of its mission "reset" for the B-1 fleet, the Air Force is not only making its supersonic bombers more visible with multiple flights around the world, it's also getting back into the habit of having them practice stand-off precision strikes in the Pacific, a dramatic pivot following years of flying close-air support missions in the Middle East.

The "nice thing about the B-1 is it can carry [the Long-Range Anti-Ship Missile], and that's perfectly suited for the Pacific theater," Maj. Gen. Jim Dawkins Jr., commander of the Eighth Air Force and the Joint-Global Strike Operations Center at Barksdale Air Force Base, Louisiana, said in an interview Tuesday.

"Not only are we resetting the airplane's mission-capability rates and the training done for the aircraft, we're also resetting how we employ the airplane to get more toward great power competition to align with the National Defense Strategy," added Dawkins, who supports the warfighting air component to U.S. Strategic Command, as well as operations within Air Force Global Strike Command.

According to the 2018 NDS, "China is a strategic competitor using predatory economics to intimidate its neighbors while militarizing features in the South China Sea."

Former Air Force Secretary Heather Wilson stated that China has become "a pacing threat for the U.S. Air Force because of the pace of their modernization" in the region.

The Pentagon's strategy prioritizes deterring adversaries by denying their use of force in the first place.

That's one reason four bombers from Dyess Air Force Base, Texas, have been launching from Andersen Air Force Base, Guam, for patrols across the East and South China Seas since May 1, according to Air Force social media posts [emphasis added]. The bombers deployed to Andersen after the service suspended its continuous bomber presence mission in the Pacific for the first time in 16 years.

During a simulated strike, crews "will pick a notional target, and then they will do some mission planning and flying through an area that they are able to hold that target at risk, at range," Dawkins said...
https://www.military.com/daily-news/2020/05/20/b-1-bomber-may-become-new-face-us-military-power-pacific.html

Mark
Ottawa

 

[MilEME09]

Great way to keep the PLA-N in check, utilizing swarm tactics you could overwhelm counter measures, and be in your way back to base before they can counter. What we need is some kinda of NATO style containment alliance in South East Asia, form a united front against the PLA threat.

 

[Good2Golf]

Great way to keep the PLA-N in check, utilizing swarm tactics you could overwhelm counter measures, and be in your way back to base before they can counter. What we need is some kinda of NATO style containment alliance in South East Asia, form a united front against the PLA threat.

You mean like ASEAN?

 

[MilEME09]

You mean like ASEAN?

I'll fully admit to not doing my research this time, however I was thinking of a group to include Australia, New Zealand and possibly India.

 

[MarkOttawa]

Problem is ASEAN is no alliance and defence cooperation is very limited. Moreover some members--Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar in particular do not want to do anything to antagonize the PRC. Only country with a strong stand is Vietnam (last invaded by China in 1979 https://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2015/05/01/402572349/ask-the-vietnamese-about-war-and-they-think-china-not-the-u-s ).

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Good2Golf]

Problem is ASEAN is no alliance and defence cooperation is very limited. Moreover some members--Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar in particular do not want to do anything to antagonize the PRC. Only country with a strong stand is Vietnam (last invaded by China in 1979 https://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2015/05/01/402572349/ask-the-vietnamese-about-war-and-they-think-china-not-the-u-s ).

Mark
Ottawa

Good point, as opposed to the synergy and harmony in NATO and no member nation doing anything like.....oh, let’s say buying equipment from adversaries. 

 

[MilEME09]

Good point, as opposed to the synergy and harmony in NATO and no member nation doing anything like.....oh, let’s say buying equipment from adversaries. 

Or being provocative to another member including airspace violations by fighters?

 

[Kirkhill]

Good point, as opposed to the synergy and harmony in NATO and no member nation doing anything like.....oh, let’s say buying equipment from adversaries. 

Thank the lord Harry that we can count on the Portuguese and the Romanians to defend our arctic, otherwise the Russians could ski all over us.

 

[Good2Golf]

Or being provocative to another member including airspace violations by fighters?

Exactly! :nod:

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Good point, as opposed to the synergy and harmony in NATO and no member nation doing anything like.....oh, let’s say buying equipment from adversaries. 

No problem with that, if they share the intel gained with the rest of us.