Long Range Anti-Ship Missile

They can probability upgrade existing stocks and save a butt-ton of money.

Yes, but i feel like Harpoon II bring so little to the table in term of survivability. It doesn’t have low RCS, it doesn’t have passive sensor to attack silently, it doesn’t have multi mode sensors like SPEAR, it doesn’t have speed either.

As I mentioned, the USN have LRASM and can scale the program. They value and wish to retain an active seeker weapon in their inventory, hence the networked Harpoon and what looks like an ER version in the short term as well.

As far as i know, there is passive sensor currently in the work for JSM
http://www.baesystems.com/en-aus/art…strike-missile

The operational word there being currently in the works. Meanwhile, there is an operational active seeker in the Navy inventory, there is an integrated DARPA developed Passive RF sensor that is working its way towards IOC, and there is a short-medium term plan to develop a multi-mode maritime seeker for the Long Range Cruise Missile. So plenty of options to choose from for OASuW Increment 2 but yeah JSM could be considered as a quick fix if bay compatibility is important. That however does come with certain compromises and does not leverage some of the advances made by DARPA and ONR over the last few years.

The chances of JSM being an “as is” Inc-2 weapon and being procured by the USN in quantity are pretty much Zero. As I had mentioned they have worked very closely with DARPA over the last many years to develop the LRASM passive sensor and integrating it with the IIR JASSM-ER sensor. Additional Assured PNT initiatives are also being actively invested in by ONR, DARPA and the DOD in general. For a proper Harpoon replacement, these will be incorporated. This obviously assumes the Increment-2 is an eventual Harpoon replacement and not just an extension of interim capability or a programatic vehicle to simply buy more LRASM-As.

You are correct that NSM currently doesn’t have datalink but JSM is built in with 2way datalink from the start.

Correct but JSM is also under development and not an operational weapon unlike the NSM which is being offered for a Navy program of record. For OASuW Increment 2 JSM could be consider but again it would depend upon what the design and service goals are and where they are willing to compromise. If the Navy does not value an active seeker for Increment-2, it would be quite foolish to not pursue integrating the LRASM sensor_fit into a new weapon if a new weapon is actually needed for internal-bay or weight-class reasons. Otherwise there is absolutely no reason not to simply make the LRASM-A the Increment-2 weapon. It has a 1000 lb warhead and longer range, is fully networked and specifically designed by DARPA to exist in the Pacific environment in terms of networking and guidance in a GPS degraded environ. There are a few subsonic-cruise missile programs in the works where a LRASM suite can be packaged. But first, the USN needs to define the performance requirements for Inc-2. They are not there yet.

For the LCS, Kongsberg/Raytheon chose to offer the NSM, and not a vertical or canister launched JSM with a booster so the question of offering a networked weapon does not arise. Two networked weapons could have competed but both companies chose not to given the way the RFPs were structured.

Also why don’t they just use SM-6 as active seeker weapons?

There is no air-launched SM6.

I don’t really see the point of harpoon-ER when you could have SLAM-ER, NSM or JSM

I think the USN does. They do not want to loose an Active Seeker weapon from their inventory but I don’t think they have completely decided on longer range yet. The NSM and JSM don’t have a passive RF seeker either and as per the variants offered to the US Navy’s up gunned LCS, they are not networked yet. The Harpoon and the ER have an active RF seeker and are fully networked weapons. Same with the LRASM as far as networking is concerned. The USN has not released preliminary requirements for the air-launched OASuW Increment 2 yet (after re-branding the program to be exclusively air-launched vs an earlier ship launched focus) but Boeing seems to think that they will want longer range and would value networking and active seekers. Regardless since the JSM would require development to develop active or multi-mode seeker concepts it would loose some of its advantage over its competitors when it comes to its maturity. I don’t see the USN following up on the LRASM with a singe mode passive weapon..It would sort of defeat the purpose of fielding a different weapon.

I think a lot will depend upon whether the USN aims for internal bay requirements or not. That will affect the range and design requirements. Additionally, focusing on the F-35C and FA-XX as the primary design focus puts even more pressure on the designs as far as networking is concerned.

Meanwhile Boeing continues to work on this –

I don’t really see the point of harpoon-ER when you could have SLAM-ER, NSM or JSM
it doesn’t have range or the stealth characteristics of JSM, NSM, it doesn’t have the IIR seeker + passive RF seeker either

….

They are very different types of weapons. The SM6 is unlikely to have the ability to sea skim, and may just be a simple ballistic profile to get range. The LRASM on the other hand has a considerable RCS Reduction, has the chops to re-route based on the threat and is networked for very long range (SATCOM). I don’t think SCO designed the SM6 modification to make into a front line AShM..more like a good to have secondary capability. LRASM is most definitely not a shoe in for the Increment-2 contract. At the moment Raytheon’s TLAM modification has a considerably longer range and will most likely sport an active seeker. I don’t think the SM6 is a viable contender for the OASUW Increment 2 requirement but things could change.

Even the F-18E/F launched LRASM is unlikely to become a mainstream weapon. I don’t think the Navy is willing to completely replace the Harpoon with it and they’ll soon be getting the extended range AARGM-ER so that is a viable supersonic weapon since they can attack ships even with the current AARGM. The LRASM is likely to be a niche capability with a few hundred missiles acquired between the USN and the USAF with a specific threat in mind. This could obviously change, but between the JSOW (and now the JSOW-C being brought back), AARGM, Harpoon, and the upcoming AARGM-ER the Navy will have many options that will be available in numbers so it may be cost prohibitive to buy a lot of LRASM’s since the Navy never bought the baseline JASSM or the JASSM-ER.

Meanwhile Boeing continues to work on this –

I’m actually more excited about the LRASM-B-1 and eventually LRASM-B-21 capability than the F-18E/F integration. Aviation Week reported this week that the integration of the LRASM with the B-1 is now complete so all that is left is to finish testing and get this capability out into the field. Since the production run is off the same line as the JASSM they can stop and start as they introduce new capability.

The LRASM program currently is focused on delivering capability to the F-18E/F and the B-1B.

Yes, you are entirely correct. I´ve come to see so many videos of LRASM´s being shot from (CGI) Surface vessel´s that ended up to think of it has a direct replacement for the surface fleet Harpoon´s, wich is not correct.

The Navy has not yet indicated whether it is willing to accept the SM6 as an Increment-2 weapon and it used the Harpoon along with the SM2 that had a similar capability for years as well. The Tomahawk will also get the new seeker to allow it to go after ships. They are clearly aiming for having multiple systems in their inventory that can act as dual role systems and I’m sure the Increment-2 requirements stay as is and the LRASM along with possibly the Tomahawk could both compete along with other weapons.

The idea that i have (might be wrong) about the Standard and the Harpoon being used has Ashm´s at the same time by the US Navy surface fleet was that the first missile being SARH guided, was in practice (against ships) a (relatively) short range, defensive weapon, its range dictated by the iluminators on the Destroyer, wich were blinded by earth´s curvature at medium/long distances, the Harpoon was the long range offensive weapon. Now the SM6 having a radar on its nose doesnt have the problem of having to rely on an external source to iluminate the target, so looking at its size, weight, speed, range, and the massive numbers that an AEGIS Destroyer can carry, it seems (to me) that the surface Ashm mission can (could?) be almost entirely be taken by this chap. But i dont have absolutely no direct experience on ships and Ashm weapons… so, take my opinion with quite a bit of salt…

Cheers

The LRASM program currently is focused on delivering capability to the F-18E/F and the B-1B. Both cannot launch the SM6 unless you get rid of the boosters and try to integrate it that way. The Navy has not yet indicated whether it is willing to accept the SM6 as an Increment-2 weapon and it used the Harpoon along with the SM2 that had a similar capability for years as well. The Tomahawk will also get the new seeker to allow it to go after ships. They are clearly aiming for having multiple systems in their inventory that can act as dual role systems and I’m sure the Increment-2 requirements stay as is and the LRASM along with possibly the Tomahawk could both compete along with other weapons.

Not exactly on topic, but it might have an impact on the LRASM program. The USS Reuben James was sunk this year by a salvo of SM6´s. Now i look at the speed, range and size of the SM6 and a great big chunk of the LRASM mission seems to be taken…

Cheers

Courtesy James Drew @ AvWeek

Offering Mk41 compatibility and a standalone laugh tube for LCS looks like a very sensible idea to me

Planned for NSM/JSM too

LRASM has to first win the Increment 2 competition for it to be developed further for surface and sub surface launch.

Offering Mk41 compatibility and a standalone laugh tube for LCS looks like a very sensible idea to me

Wish list:
Now please integrate LRASM to the VPM PDQ TLA

Pie in the sky:
And RN gets batch 2 Astutes with a hull plug and VPM

Ok.

Yes

Is that a suface launched LRASM?

Proposed LRASM launcher for the Littoral Combat Ship

A bit more info from Janes –

The US Navy (USN) has begun initial integration of the Lockheed Martin’s Long-Range Anti-Ship Missile (LRASM) onto the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet carrier-borne strike fighter.

Fit checks are being conducted at Naval Air Station (NAS) Patuxent River, Maryland, ahead of the start of airworthiness testing.

Being developed and integrated under an accelerated programme to meet the Offensive Anti-Surface Warfare (OASuW) Increment 1 programme, LRASM is a highly autonomous, precision-guided anti-ship standoff weapon that leverages the basic design of the AGM-158B Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile Extended Range (JASSM-ER), but introduces additional sensors and systems specific to the offensive anti-surface warfare mission. It has been conceived to be able to penetrate sophisticated shipborne defences with reduced dependence on intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance platforms, network links, and GPS navigation.

Originally initiated in 2008 by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) and the Office of Naval Research, the programme has now been transitioned to the LRASM Deployment Office (LDO), a partnership of DARPA, the USN through the Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR), and the US Air Force (USAF).

The Department of Defense’s fiscal year (FY) 2015 budget confirmed plans to move forward with sole-source acquisition of LRASM to meet the OASuW Increment 1 programme requirement. The LDO plans to deliver an Early Operational Capability (EOC) on USAF’s B-1B Lancer bomber from FY 2018; EOC on the USN’s F/A-18E/F Super Hornet is to follow in FY 2019. LRASM pre-production missiles have already been the subject of three successful flight tests from the B-1B. Activity to support LRASM integration on the F/A-18E/F began at NAS Patuxent River Air Test and Evaluation Squadron (VX) 23 facility on 12 August.

According to NAVAIR, the programme’s flight test team conducted missile load and fit checks using a mass simulator vehicle, designed to emulate LRASM, in order to familiarise the test team with the proper loading, unloading, and handling of the missile on the F/A-18E/F. These tests, which will check clearances between the missile and the aircraft to ensure there are no negative effects when carrying LRASM, are being undertaken in preparation for the first phase of airworthiness testing with the Super Hornet, scheduled to begin later in August.

NAVAIR plans to continue integration and flight testing through to EOC. Activities to clear LRASM for F/A-18E/F flight operations will be performed at both NAS Patuxent River and Naval Air Weapons Station China Lake, California.

According to Captain Timothy Hill, LDO deputy director, LRASM is to be certified for carriage on F/A-18E/F wing stations 3, 4, 8, and 9. “Software integration is the only modification required for the Super Hornet,” he told IHS Jane’s , adding, “The programme will conduct an accelerated version of the standard aero-mechanical integration testing done for every weapon prior to proceeding to weapon integration testing; these events include platform/software integration and captive carry, wind tunnel, drop, and loads testing.”

Weapon integration testing will be a combination of live missile tests, live virtual constructive events, and modelling and simulation. Carrier suitability testing is scheduled for FY 2018.

LRASM has accomplished three successful live fire events to date: two in 2013 during the original DARPA demonstration period, and a third in February 2015. “The next phase of live-fire launches will begin in FY2017 with the B-1B,” said Capt Hill, “and continue through [to] F/A-18E/F EOC in FY2019.”