DARPA Long Range Anti-ship Missile (LRASM)

I measure it as roughly 70-74 inches in length. For comparison, the JSM would be between 2.10 and 2.25 times longer than a single Speed Racer based on my rough estimates.
 

Attachments

  • GFbV_hqWMAAjSQz.jpeg
    GFbV_hqWMAAjSQz.jpeg
    2.5 MB · Views: 61
  • JSM_F35_Chk.jpeg
    JSM_F35_Chk.jpeg
    739.1 KB · Views: 58
Last edited:
So is idea that two would fit nose to tail in the bay vice side by side like sidekick upgrade for AIM-120? I guess that is a more efficient use of volume for something subsonic.
 
TomS said:
Spear is an SDB-class weapon, while MACE envisages something rather larger than that.
Click to expand...
Yeah I'm using Speed Racer more as a template for something that maximizes IWB volume and fit 4 internally could look like. So far, no one besides LM has shown such a vehicle concept. It is clear that while the Navy will trade magazine size vs something like SPEAR 3 it will gain range and mission system volume. This is a really smart requirement given the Navy is already buying the Stormbreaker for F-35C and F/A-18 E/F and plans to perhaps integrate JAGM-F on F-35 as well based on recent solicitations. It is particularly wise given the proliferation of unmanned systems and the Navy's FA-XX that will also have a IWB.
 
Last edited:
FighterJock said:
What speed would Speed Racer have Subsonic or Supersonic?
Click to expand...

Firmly subsonic. We do not know a lot about the project but the focus appears to have been rapid development and low cost production, not high performance.

ETA: The "speed" in this case is the speed of development, not the speed of the platform.
 
Last edited:
Josh_TN said:
but the focus appears to have been rapid development and low cost production
Click to expand...
I think they want to go straight into production with a mature design that may possibly have already been demonstrated. They want it in the field by FY27 and they haven't even awarded a contract yet.
 
bring_it_on said:
I think they want to go straight into production with a mature design that may possibly have already been demonstrated. They want it in the field by FY27 and they haven't even awarded a contract yet.
Click to expand...

Definitely, and I think Speedracer is the target system. The USAF seems to be doing the same thing for powered JDAM - putting out an RFI that seems almost tailored to an existing project with a timeline that no other competitor could possibly reach (also ~500/year by 2027, but 500lb warhead class 250nm range with 10m CEP).
 
bring_it_on said:
This is a really smart requirement given the Navy is already buying the Stormbreaker for F-35C and F/A-18 E/F and plans to perhaps integrate JAGM-F on F-35 as well based on recent solicitations
Click to expand...
If the target cost can be hit then it's also not that much more than Stormbreaker e.g. 2 x $300k Vs 4 x $200k(ish) so you can still afford to buy in quantity, whilst also getting higher stand off. Although with that higher stand off then I wonder how it is targeted.
 
red admiral said:
If the target cost can be hit then it's also not that much more than Stormbreaker e.g. 2 x $300k Vs 4 x $200k(ish) so you can still afford to buy in quantity, whilst also getting higher stand off. Although with that higher stand off then I wonder how it is targeted.
Click to expand...

Presumably the same way LRASM is targeted -- networked offboard sensors/national technical means.
 
It seems likely MACE would need at least a LOS datalink. But it seems like that is not particularly expensive in money or weight/volume these days.
 
sferrin said:
Looks like LRASM-B is basically gonna be ASALM. From this week's AvWeek:

"The high-speed, high-altitude LRASM-B uses a Pratt & Whitney integrated rocket/ramjet propulsion system originally developed in the 1970s for the supersonic Advanced Strategic Air-Launched Missile (Asalm)."

This is just pathetic. Our expertise (such as it is) is so behind the times that they have to reach 40 years into the past to find something that actually works? And I suspect the "L" in "LRASM" will leave a lot to be desired as well. ASALM was to have a 300 mile range with the relatively light weight W80. Go to a conventional warhead and range will drop like a rock . I hope ASALM is merely a reference and that this thing will be scaled up and improved or they may as well not even bother. What next, they gonna blow the dust off Talos?

The money quote:

"Jassm-ER was selected as the basis for the “super-stealthy” LRASM-A because it is “a mature missile with mature propulsion,” says Kuller. The Asalm-based propulsion system for the LRASM-B “is as mature as we could get for a high-speed missile,” he says." A 40 year old design, "yep, that's the best we can do". This is what happens when you let your industrial base go to hell.

"Plans call for two air launches of the LRASM-A from a U.S. Air Force bomber and four surface launches of the LRASM-B from the Mk29 vertical-launch canister using the Aerojet Mk72 booster from the Standard SM-3 surface-to-air missile. For the demonstration flights, LRASM-B will use integrated rocket/ramjets originally built for the Asalm-derived Supersonic Low-Altitude Target (SLAT) and stored at China Lake, Calif., since the program was cancelled in 1991, Kuller says."

I guess they're gonna be screwed after they've used those up and they have to try to make more. (That's when it'll get cancelled due to cost escalations and "technical challenges".)
Click to expand...
Well said indeed
 
Josh_TN said:
200-300 probably is not far off for AGM-158C-1. The only figure I’ve seen in print is “> 200nm”.
Click to expand...

I had the idea in my head that even C-1 was based on JASSM-ER.

The other think that jumped out is their idea that the Air Force ERAM and Navy MACE are looking at similar weapons. Our consensus here is that ERAM is probably tailored to PJDAM, which is quite a bit larger and less complicated.
 
LRASM C1 is based on the ER, but apparently it sacrifices fuel for capability (RF sensors? Countermeasures?). The C2 is more JASSM-esque version, though they don’t describe what is removed outside the passive RF guidance. They don’t give a range for it but I would guess it is close to 158B. I assume it at least retains the radar altimeter and datalink, or else I don’t see the point. C3 is supposed to have both the range and RF (warhead reduction?).

I had thought the ERAM proposal was for a 500lb class warhead, not launch weight, which would definitely put it in a totally different size class. I guess read the request too fast if it’s supposed to be a 500lb AUP.
 
Josh_TN said:
I had thought the ERAM proposal was for a 500lb class warhead, not launch weight, which would definitely put it in a totally different size class. I guess read the request too fast if it’s supposed to be a 500lb AUP.
Click to expand...

Me too. But I just looked and ERAM does call for a "500# class weapon" not warhead. So yeah, these actually might be similar.

Damn, I hate having to apologize to TWZ.
 
Last edited:
TomS said:
Me too. But I just looked and ERAM does call for a "500# class weapon" not warhead. So yeah, these actually might be similar.
Click to expand...

I had assumed USAF wanted more munitions for its bombers, but if they are looking at 500lb class, it is clearly tactical. Also they could benefit from F-35 internal carriage as well. I wonder if they would not collaborate or use the same product in that case? Or one or the other ends up buying the same thing and investing more in the production line to get to 1000/year?

TomS said:
Damn, I hate having to apologize to TWZ.
Click to expand...

Hah! Well at least you know they will see it here!
 
TomS said:
Me too. But I just looked and ERAM does call for a "500# class weapon" not warhead. So yeah, these actually might be similar.
Click to expand...
The Air Force is leaving it up to the vendors to select the warhead.
 
Jimmo952 said:
What is the idea behind MACE? Get more missiles in the air for satuation attacks? More suitable for smaller targets?

Will this be used as a kind of MALD-like decoy for LRASM?
Click to expand...

Remember how a few years ago there were proposals for one of the MALDs to be used to perform all kinds of different roles? It's not just a decoy or jammer, it can be a missile... or deliver supplies... or take pictures.... or it's your uber driver.... it delivers Amazon packages... etc.

MACE/Speed Racer is intended to do all that. It's the platform that MALD almost became.
 
So I'm figuring most would essentially be intended as decoys but with a small HE warhead so if not down it will hopefully hit an active radar and explode, potentially disabling or degrading it and making it all the easier for the following LRASMs to hit.
I have no idea if they intend for this to home in on radar emissions but it seems like that would be ideal. I just wonder how cheap you can make such a sensor? Including whatever full array of sensors LRASM has seems like it would be cost prohibitive.
 
Colonial-Marine said:
So I'm figuring most would essentially be intended as decoys but with a small HE warhead so if not down it will hopefully hit an active radar and explode, potentially disabling or degrading it and making it all the easier for the following LRASMs to hit.
I have no idea if they intend for this to home in on radar emissions but it seems like that would be ideal. I just wonder how cheap you can make such a sensor? Including whatever full array of sensors LRASM has seems like it would be cost prohibitive.
Click to expand...

It seems likely that guidance is INS/GPS with some kind of EO or IIR terminal homing. I doubt any RF capability is envisioned or required.
 
Isn't Mace perfect for the Navy to take Out enemy radar and then to go in with quicksink? Looks to me like that is one of the ideas
 
kqcke for you said:
Isn't Mace perfect for the Navy to take Out enemy radar and then to go in with quicksink? Looks to me like that is one of the ideas
Click to expand...

Quicksink is a USAF project. Not sure the USN has any involvement or interest. Given their interest in MALD-N, I think they are looking more for something to fill out LRASM or Tomahawk strikes.
 
I don't get the fascination with Quicksink - it's a nice capability that is practically useless in the Pacific Theater.

There has to be a story about why Raytheon couldn't turn MALD into MACE/Speedracer, they have the missile, it is already external / internal carriage cleared, but they couldn't modify it fast enough? Bizarre lack of management boldness.
 
DrRansom said:
I don't get the fascination with Quicksink - it's a nice capability that is practically useless in the Pacific Theater.
Click to expand...
It's a very convenient fuze add-on for any of the standard Mk80series bombs. Convenient enough that I suspect that the next generation of bomb fuzes will have that across the board, in addition to the regular air/ground burst/penetrating fuzing options, once component costs come down enough.

And yes, somewhat marginal against a functional naval warship, but if the warship's air defense radar is down for whatever reason...
 
DrRansom said:
I don't get the fascination with Quicksink - it's a nice capability that is practically useless in the Pacific Theater.
Click to expand...
Just a way how to take out ships without needing to use the more expensive ashm. Just Mace taking out radar systems for example but as Quicksink is a USAF thing probaly wont see it in the navy like you said.
 
Quicksink probably makes more sense in the context of a strategic bomber dropping a large number of them on a lightly defended target set than a tactical fighter dropping them on a well defended warship. Stealth bombers might deliver a vast number on a convoy or invasion fleet. But a handful of fighters would struggle to engage a SAG.
 
Would have loved to see a video of four LRASM hitting their targets.
 
Same here sferrin, it would be brilliant to have some official footage of the missiles getting launched and then going after their targets.
 
The second article notes that this is explicitly the C3 version, which has been billed as LRASM-ER and apparently gains back most of the range of JASSM-ER. I did not realize it was already in production.
 
Last edited:
Good news about the LRASM C3/ER variant in production plus getting back the range of the JASSM, that will mean that the LRASM-ER/ER will be able to be fired much further away from the target than the standard LRASM.
 
FighterJock said:
Good news about the LRASM C3/ER variant in production plus getting back the range of the JASSM, that will mean that the LRASM-ER/ER will be able to be fired much further away from the target than the standard LRASM.
Click to expand...
Pretty sure LRASM is based on the JASSM-ER already.
 
sferrin said:
Pretty sure LRASM is based on the JASSM-ER already.
Click to expand...

It is, but the original LRASM had a significantly shorter range than JASSM-ER, possibly because of all the specialized RF sensors. Or maybe because it flies a lower flight path for its terminal phase. In any case, the range is said to be >200nm, which is still a pretty far cry from the AGM-158B it is based on. The C2 version drops the RF equipment, probably to get that range back, and Av Leak referred to it as "naval JASSM". I suspect it retains an ability to sea skim (radar altimeter), and the datalink that allows for target updates. But it loses the ability to detect pop up threats or stalk its targets via their radar emissions. C3 apparently puts that back into the missile while extending range over the C1 version - I suspect by using a smaller warhead. The WDU-42 is suboptimal for ship work as it is hard target penetrator with low HE content; you could probably put a Harpoon warhead in there and get roughly the same terminal effects. Or perhaps they have micronized the electronics enough to just allow more fuel with the RF equipment; LRASM was designed nearly a decade ago. Alternatively, maybe they changed the method of signal detection - the fact that four missiles were used in one test makes me wonder if perhaps they were testing cooperative attack methods, like using DToA and short range datalinks to geolocate targets rather than direction finding based on phase or what have you.

EDIT: adopting the Harpoon warhead might also explain why it is not compatible /effective against land targets; it would have little penetrating capability.
 
Last edited:
I did not know that the LRASM used the Harpoon warhead? That is news to me, I wonder what made them go down that route? Money?
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom