• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

DARPA Long Range Anti-ship Missile (LRASM)

marauder2048

"I should really just relax"
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
3,158
Reaction score
506
The original wording was in that way: "A 500-lbs-warhead-like EFFECT". Based on lighter titanium shell of warhead and better explosive filling. Most probably refering to a Mk82 bomb warhead for reference. Weight was given (depending on source) as 120kg, 125kg, 130kg, 250lbs and 264lbs.

The explosive fill is not particularly impressive either.
The published detonation velocities for it are unremarkable compared
to other IM fills out there (e.g. AFX-757) and its IM properties are meh:
deflagration for SCO and FCO.

tnt-equivalent-ks22a.png
 
Last edited:

Josh_TN

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 4, 2019
Messages
828
Reaction score
450
AGM-158 only has ~240lbs /120kg of AFX757 filler. So the difference between NSM/JSM and LRASM isn’t all that great. Both weapons can pick their impact point however. A couple hundred pounds of HE is more enough to remodel a bridge and CIC into more of an open concept.
 

marauder2048

"I should really just relax"
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
3,158
Reaction score
506
AGM-158 only has ~240lbs /120kg of AFX757 filler.

Per the published data there's a very large difference in energy density/detonation velocity.

I can't find fill quantities for JSM. If you have it I'd appreciate it.

So the difference between NSM/JSM and LRASM isn’t all that great.

That's not how people actually model the damage ASCMs do to warships.

Both weapons can pick their impact point however. A couple hundred pounds of HE is more enough to remodel a bridge and CIC into more of an open concept.

Last I checked, the enemy probably gets some say in the impact point.
 

Josh_TN

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 4, 2019
Messages
828
Reaction score
450
AGM-158 only has ~240lbs /120kg of AFX757 filler.

Per the published data there's a very large difference in energy density/detonation velocity.

I can't find fill quantities for JSM. If you have it I'd appreciate it.

So the difference between NSM/JSM and LRASM isn’t all that great.

That's not how people actually model the damage ASCMs do to warships.

Both weapons can pick their impact point however. A couple hundred pounds of HE is more enough to remodel a bridge and CIC into more of an open concept.

Last I checked, the enemy probably gets some say in the impact point.

I'm aware explosive fillers aren't equal, and AFX-757 is some pretty potent bang compared to plain jane tritonal. My point wasn't to quibble over brisance values but rather to point out most of LRASM's thousand pound warhead is hard Ti casing designed to penetrate hardened and buried targets that doesn't add a lot of damage potential to a ship impact. The warhead was carried over from the AGM-158B for the sake of expediency in the DARPA project and was never swapped out when it became a program of record (to the best of my knowledge).

I'm not aware of the damage models used for warships impacts; I would appreciate any links on the subject if such information is public.

My point about impact placement is that a modern IIR seeker doesn't hit its target randomly or in the center of it's signature. If the enemy votes on impact point, presumably it is more of a 'whether it impacts' rather than 'where will it impact'.
 

marauder2048

"I should really just relax"
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
3,158
Reaction score
506
I'm aware explosive fillers aren't equal, and AFX-757 is some pretty potent bang compared to plain jane tritonal. My point wasn't to quibble over brisance values but rather to point out most of LRASM's thousand pound warhead is hard Ti casing

As opposed to the hard Titanium casing for JSM's warhead?


I'm not aware of the damage models used for warships impacts; I would appreciate any links on the subject if such information is public.

"Definition of Damage Volumes for the Rapid Prediction of Ship Vulnerability to AIREX Weapon Effects" by Sean Aaron Stark
is a decent reference where you can follow the links.


My point about impact placement is that a modern IIR seeker doesn't hit its target randomly or in the center of it's signature. If the enemy votes on impact point, presumably it is more of a 'whether it impacts' rather than 'where will it impact'.

SLAM-ER has MITL control for aim point refinement and a titanium cased warhead that's larger than JSM; despite all of that
it's generally accredited with less lethality against ships than Harpoon.
 

MihoshiK

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Feb 9, 2007
Messages
208
Reaction score
143
SLAM-ER has MITL control for aim point refinement and a titanium cased warhead that's larger than JSM; despite all of that
it's generally accredited with less lethality against ships than Harpoon.
I have to point out that without knowing the weight ratio of casing/explosives in the respective warheads, we really can't say much about the amount of filler compared to each other.
 

Josh_TN

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 4, 2019
Messages
828
Reaction score
450
I'm aware explosive fillers aren't equal, and AFX-757 is some pretty potent bang compared to plain jane tritonal. My point wasn't to quibble over brisance values but rather to point out most of LRASM's thousand pound warhead is hard Ti casing

As opposed to the hard Titanium casing for JSM's warhead?


I'm not aware of the damage models used for warships impacts; I would appreciate any links on the subject if such information is public.

"Definition of Damage Volumes for the Rapid Prediction of Ship Vulnerability to AIREX Weapon Effects" by Sean Aaron Stark
is a decent reference where you can follow the links.


My point about impact placement is that a modern IIR seeker doesn't hit its target randomly or in the center of it's signature. If the enemy votes on impact point, presumably it is more of a 'whether it impacts' rather than 'where will it impact'.

SLAM-ER has MITL control for aim point refinement and a titanium cased warhead that's larger than JSM; despite all of that
it's generally accredited with less lethality against ships than Harpoon.

The casing material isn't relevant in, just the fact that AGM-158C uses a warhead that is ~75% casing optimized for a different target set. I don't have figures for NSM, but just taking the penguin as a rough comparison, it is ~120kg with ~40kg of explosive. That's still well short of the explosive fill of LRASM, but the gap is less than the total warhead weight would imply. I don't have data on hand, but I'm pretty sure SLAM-ER uses a warhead similar to AGM-158 that more heavily optimizes penetration compared to the original Harpoon/SLAM warhead. I'm not sure how damage models account or adjust for aimpoint, but I will read up on the subject.
 

marauder2048

"I should really just relax"
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
3,158
Reaction score
506
SLAM-ER has 166 lbs of PBXN-113 fill (which is 5% less energetic than KS-22a)
for a total warhead weight of 500 lbs. IOW, very close to the ratio in the putative NSM warhead based on Penguin.

We also don't know the case thickness for any of these warheads.
 
Last edited:

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,901
Reaction score
2,175
I'm aware explosive fillers aren't equal, and AFX-757 is some pretty potent bang compared to plain jane tritonal. My point wasn't to quibble over brisance values but rather to point out most of LRASM's thousand pound warhead is hard Ti casing

As opposed to the hard Titanium casing for JSM's warhead?


I'm not aware of the damage models used for warships impacts; I would appreciate any links on the subject if such information is public.

"Definition of Damage Volumes for the Rapid Prediction of Ship Vulnerability to AIREX Weapon Effects" by Sean Aaron Stark
is a decent reference where you can follow the links.


My point about impact placement is that a modern IIR seeker doesn't hit its target randomly or in the center of it's signature. If the enemy votes on impact point, presumably it is more of a 'whether it impacts' rather than 'where will it impact'.

SLAM-ER has MITL control for aim point refinement and a titanium cased warhead that's larger than JSM; despite all of that
it's generally accredited with less lethality against ships than Harpoon.

The casing material isn't relevant in, just the fact that AGM-158C uses a warhead that is ~75% casing optimized for a different target set. I don't have figures for NSM, but just taking the penguin as a rough comparison, it is ~120kg with ~40kg of explosive. That's still well short of the explosive fill of LRASM, but the gap is less than the total warhead weight would imply. I don't have data on hand, but I'm pretty sure SLAM-ER uses a warhead similar to AGM-158 that more heavily optimizes penetration compared to the original Harpoon/SLAM warhead. I'm not sure how damage models account or adjust for aimpoint, but I will read up on the subject.
JASSM will be a hell of a lot further into the ship before it goes boom.
 

Mark S.

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Feb 5, 2011
Messages
133
Reaction score
28
All you need to do with the warhead is to start a fire in the engine room of any ship. Side hull plating isn't that thick and the JASSM warhead is designed for penetrating reinforced concrete. Should work well generating a lot of heavy fragments. The warhead denotating in the engine room has a high probability of putting holes in high pressure fuel lines or on larger and older vessels steam ones. Additionally high speed turbines don't do well when their casings are penetrated and their blades are sheared off. Either case the ship becomes dead in he water without an engine room and it's crew. Two missiles, two engine rooms and you have a mission kill. Could return later with laser guided 2000 pounders if you want to sink it.
 

Josh_TN

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 4, 2019
Messages
828
Reaction score
450
I'm aware explosive fillers aren't equal, and AFX-757 is some pretty potent bang compared to plain jane tritonal. My point wasn't to quibble over brisance values but rather to point out most of LRASM's thousand pound warhead is hard Ti casing

As opposed to the hard Titanium casing for JSM's warhead?


I'm not aware of the damage models used for warships impacts; I would appreciate any links on the subject if such information is public.

"Definition of Damage Volumes for the Rapid Prediction of Ship Vulnerability to AIREX Weapon Effects" by Sean Aaron Stark
is a decent reference where you can follow the links.


My point about impact placement is that a modern IIR seeker doesn't hit its target randomly or in the center of it's signature. If the enemy votes on impact point, presumably it is more of a 'whether it impacts' rather than 'where will it impact'.

SLAM-ER has MITL control for aim point refinement and a titanium cased warhead that's larger than JSM; despite all of that
it's generally accredited with less lethality against ships than Harpoon.

The casing material isn't relevant in, just the fact that AGM-158C uses a warhead that is ~75% casing optimized for a different target set. I don't have figures for NSM, but just taking the penguin as a rough comparison, it is ~120kg with ~40kg of explosive. That's still well short of the explosive fill of LRASM, but the gap is less than the total warhead weight would imply. I don't have data on hand, but I'm pretty sure SLAM-ER uses a warhead similar to AGM-158 that more heavily optimizes penetration compared to the original Harpoon/SLAM warhead. I'm not sure how damage models account or adjust for aimpoint, but I will read up on the subject.
JASSM will be a hell of a lot further into the ship before it goes boom.

JASSM is perfectly capable of going in one side and out the other, if that were for some reason desirable.
 

marauder2048

"I should really just relax"
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
3,158
Reaction score
506
I presume that means the missile could come in near the waterline at such an angle that the
exit/detonation would be beneath the waterline.
 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,901
Reaction score
2,175
All you need to do with the warhead is to start a fire in the engine room of any ship. Side hull plating isn't that thick and the JASSM warhead is designed for penetrating reinforced concrete. Should work well generating a lot of heavy fragments. The warhead denotating in the engine room has a high probability of putting holes in high pressure fuel lines or on larger and older vessels steam ones. Additionally high speed turbines don't do well when their casings are penetrated and their blades are sheared off. Either case the ship becomes dead in he water without an engine room and it's crew. Two missiles, two engine rooms and you have a mission kill. Could return later with laser guided 2000 pounders if you want to sink it.


Sure, just figure out how to get a missile to the engine room.
I presume that means the missile could come in near the waterline at such an angle that the
exit/detonation would be beneath the waterline.

Just an interesting factoid but the Russian P-1000 Vulkan dives into the water just shy of the target so it enters below the waterline. Don't know if others do.

 

Mark S.

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Feb 5, 2011
Messages
133
Reaction score
28
All you need to do with the warhead is to start a fire in the engine room of any ship. Side hull plating isn't that thick and the JASSM warhead is designed for penetrating reinforced concrete. Should work well generating a lot of heavy fragments. The warhead denotating in the engine room has a high probability of putting holes in high pressure fuel lines or on larger and older vessels steam ones. Additionally high speed turbines don't do well when their casings are penetrated and their blades are sheared off. Either case the ship becomes dead in he water without an engine room and it's crew. Two missiles, two engine rooms and you have a mission kill. Could return later with laser guided 2000 pounders if you want to sink it.


Sure, just figure out how to get a missile to the engine room.

Imaging systems coupled with templates have been around in the industrial world for decades. Wouldn't take much to build a library of ship classes and use a "hit here" template for each. The engine rooms should be nice IR sources.

I presume that means the missile could come in near the waterline at such an angle that the
exit/detonation would be beneath the waterline.

Just an interesting factoid but the Russian P-1000 Vulkan dives into the water just shy of the target so it enters below the waterline. Don't know if others do.


That suggests the same kill mechanism as a torpedo. Creating an air bubble under the center of the ship. With the ship supported on both ends by water and only air in the center it breaks neatly in two. Several videos on YouTube.
 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,901
Reaction score
2,175
All you need to do with the warhead is to start a fire in the engine room of any ship. Side hull plating isn't that thick and the JASSM warhead is designed for penetrating reinforced concrete. Should work well generating a lot of heavy fragments. The warhead denotating in the engine room has a high probability of putting holes in high pressure fuel lines or on larger and older vessels steam ones. Additionally high speed turbines don't do well when their casings are penetrated and their blades are sheared off. Either case the ship becomes dead in he water without an engine room and it's crew. Two missiles, two engine rooms and you have a mission kill. Could return later with laser guided 2000 pounders if you want to sink it.


Sure, just figure out how to get a missile to the engine room.

Imaging systems coupled with templates have been around in the industrial world for decades. Wouldn't take much to build a library of ship classes and use a "hit here" template for each. The engine rooms should be nice IR sources.

I presume that means the missile could come in near the waterline at such an angle that the
exit/detonation would be beneath the waterline.

Just an interesting factoid but the Russian P-1000 Vulkan dives into the water just shy of the target so it enters below the waterline. Don't know if others do.


That suggests the same kill mechanism as a torpedo. Creating an air bubble under the center of the ship. With the ship supported on both ends by water and only air in the center it breaks neatly in two. Several videos on YouTube.

It doesn't fly UNDER the ship, like a MK48, but enters the side of the ship below the waterline.
 

Fluff

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Sep 9, 2019
Messages
495
Reaction score
276
All you need to do with the warhead is to start a fire in the engine room of any ship. Side hull plating isn't that thick and the JASSM warhead is designed for penetrating reinforced concrete. Should work well generating a lot of heavy fragments. The warhead denotating in the engine room has a high probability of putting holes in high pressure fuel lines or on larger and older vessels steam ones. Additionally high speed turbines don't do well when their casings are penetrated and their blades are sheared off. Either case the ship becomes dead in he water without an engine room and it's crew. Two missiles, two engine rooms and you have a mission kill. Could return later with laser guided 2000 pounders if you want to sink it.


Sure, just figure out how to get a missile to the engine room.

Imaging systems coupled with templates have been around in the industrial world for decades. Wouldn't take much to build a library of ship classes and use a "hit here" template for each. The engine rooms should be nice IR sources.

I presume that means the missile could come in near the waterline at such an angle that the
exit/detonation would be beneath the waterline.

Just an interesting factoid but the Russian P-1000 Vulkan dives into the water just shy of the target so it enters below the waterline. Don't know if others do.


That suggests the same kill mechanism as a torpedo. Creating an air bubble under the center of the ship. With the ship supported on both ends by water and only air in the center it breaks neatly in two. Several videos on YouTube.

It doesn't fly UNDER the ship, like a MK48, but enters the side of the ship below the waterline.
A few items:
a 2500lb 'aircraft' hitting at 600mph, with a 500lb 'like' warhead? Sounds a lot like a kamikaze equivalent, and they did a fair bit of damage in 44/45. Appreciate your trying to be scientific, but the impact alone is going to ruin your day on only destroyer/frigate, and be a major inconvenience on a flat top, before any further damage done by the warhead. The Exocets were more than capable of killing a ship in the falklands, and I cant imagine anything other then improvements to give more time to abandon ship have been made, since then.

As to targeting 'under the bridge' -could be done I suppose with image recognition, but assuming you've got some form of radar, even just for terminal, probably best to aim for centre of biggest return. A bit like a tank, take a trak of and you've won, same for ship, one hit and the crew wont be focused on offence.
 

Josh_TN

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 4, 2019
Messages
828
Reaction score
450
That kill mechanism seems more focused on flooding/engine room damage rather than keel breaking. But I still had never heard of a missile that breached the water - I wonder if that is the only type that has that flight profile. Presumably you could also achieve a similar effect with a dive into the target and a delayed fused - Harpoon I believe still retains it's pop up maneuver. If nothing else, that probably would be effective in producing engine room damage. I think that for the most ship types though we're splitting hairs. Taking a AShM hit is generally going to cause enough damage that a ship is at least temporarily out of action, and in a peer on peer fight it seems unlikely that a ship takes only a single hit in an engagement. Even the USN is belatedly arming its smallest ships with eight missiles. I think it would take something like carrier or cruiser to shrug off a hit and be at all combat capable, and even then it would probably come down to point of impact.
 

batigol

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Jun 8, 2009
Messages
47
Reaction score
37
That kill mechanism seems more focused on flooding/engine room damage rather than keel breaking. But I still had never heard of a missile that breached the water - I wonder if that is the only type that has that flight profile. Presumably you could also achieve a similar effect with a dive into the target and a delayed fused - Harpoon I believe still retains it's pop up maneuver. If nothing else, that probably would be effective in producing engine room damage. I think that for the most ship types though we're splitting hairs. Taking a AShM hit is generally going to cause enough damage that a ship is at least temporarily out of action, and in a peer on peer fight it seems unlikely that a ship takes only a single hit in an engagement. Even the USN is belatedly arming its smallest ships with eight missiles. I think it would take something like carrier or cruiser to shrug off a hit and be at all combat capable, and even then it would probably come down to point of impact.

I think you're right on the mark. A look back at the past history of missile hits on warships has shown that most were forced to withdraw for repairs or rendered combat ineffective. I think the idea of modern warships shrugging off missile hits is fantasy. IMHO, any major fleet actions in a peer-peer conflict will be over very quickly, and I could see a scenario filled with damaged ships that aren't in danger of sinking, but also need considerable work in port to regain combat ability. Getting the first shot off is more important than ever.
 

marauder2048

"I should really just relax"
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
3,158
Reaction score
506
From Virtual Tailhook 2020.

LRASM and...JASSM-ER?
 

Attachments

  • Screen Shot 2020-09-20 at 12.43.47 AM.png
    Screen Shot 2020-09-20 at 12.43.47 AM.png
    890.2 KB · Views: 101

marauder2048

"I should really just relax"
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
3,158
Reaction score
506

Ronny

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Jul 20, 2019
Messages
459
Reaction score
219
From the Congressional Record on the UAE FMS munitions case.

https://www.congress.gov/116/crec/2020/11/10/CREC-2020-11-10-pt1-PgS6646.pdf

The AGM–154E JSOW–ER adds an engine, and supporting components, to the
JSOW C Airframe. The JSOW–ER uses the 300-pound Maverick Warhead due to its
smaller size, thereby creating room for fuel, but maintains the same penetration
capability as the JSOW C.

My emphasis.
I though JSOW-C has Broach warhead for penetration improvement?
 

marauder2048

"I should really just relax"
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
3,158
Reaction score
506
From the Congressional Record on the UAE FMS munitions case.

https://www.congress.gov/116/crec/2020/11/10/CREC-2020-11-10-pt1-PgS6646.pdf

The AGM–154E JSOW–ER adds an engine, and supporting components, to the
JSOW C Airframe. The JSOW–ER uses the 300-pound Maverick Warhead due to its
smaller size, thereby creating room for fuel, but maintains the same penetration
capability as the JSOW C.

My emphasis.
I though JSOW-C has Broach warhead for penetration improvement?

JSOW-ER would be combining the Maverick penetrator warhead with a powered dive to
achieve the same penetration depth.

Some of the earlier concept art retained the BROACH shaped charged but had a
smaller follow-through with the fuel tank wrapped around it.
 
Last edited:

TomS

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
4,694
Reaction score
1,910
Any idea to what is related Point 24 (1st page of the doc posted by @marauder2048 )

It's just part of the FMS case description. Items up to 23 is a list of weapons, item 24 is the overall highest classification of materials to be transferred, and then Items 25 and 26 are an assessment of the impact of the transfer.
 

Josh_TN

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 4, 2019
Messages
828
Reaction score
450
400 million probably is a purchase only a hundred missiles. The entire LRASM inventory probably doesn't top two hundred right now. I'd feel a little better if the USAF/USN had more of these on hand; there isn't a a shortage of PLAN targets.
 

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
14,585
Reaction score
4,312
I would feel even better if they had the 'real' LRASM. Ironically they went with an arguably poor subsonic option based on JASSM-ER in the first place supposedly in part so that they could buy & maintain a much larger inventory of missiles. That hasn't proven to be the case.
 

Ronny

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Jul 20, 2019
Messages
459
Reaction score
219
I would feel even better if they had the 'real' LRASM. Ironically they went with an arguably poor subsonic option based on JASSM-ER in the first place supposedly in part so that they could buy & maintain a much larger inventory of missiles. That hasn't proven to be the case.
yeah, that was disappointing, they could have remake ASALM.
ASALM, LRASM-B and now THOR-ER basically look the same

 

Josh_TN

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 4, 2019
Messages
828
Reaction score
450
I would feel even better if they had the 'real' LRASM. Ironically they went with an arguably poor subsonic option based on JASSM-ER in the first place supposedly in part so that they could buy & maintain a much larger inventory of missiles. That hasn't proven to be the case.
Super sonic weapons always have some draw backs. Size and expense is definitely one of them, and I think cost is what doomed 'LRASM-B'. For surface launch purposes, SM-6 basically fills that void. I think LRASM is a perfectly workable solution, so long as they are bough in sufficient numbers. It has the advantage of being carried in large numbers along with passive sensors and low RCS. Two B-1s can carry 48, enough to hold a large task force at risk. I think the current USAF planned buy is 400, which is on the low side but I suspect is sufficient for now. More could probably be ordered if necessary; I think they come off the same AGM-158 assembly line.

In the future the AShM role will probably be filled by hypersonics, probably by a descendent of HACM.
 

Ronny

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Jul 20, 2019
Messages
459
Reaction score
219
I would feel even better if they had the 'real' LRASM. Ironically they went with an arguably poor subsonic option based on JASSM-ER in the first place supposedly in part so that they could buy & maintain a much larger inventory of missiles. That hasn't proven to be the case.
Super sonic weapons always have some draw backs. Size and expense is definitely one of them, and I think cost is what doomed 'LRASM-B'. For surface launch purposes, SM-6 basically fills that void. I think LRASM is a perfectly workable solution, so long as they are bough in sufficient numbers. It has the advantage of being carried in large numbers along with passive sensors and low RCS. Two B-1s can carry 48, enough to hold a large task force at risk. I think the current USAF planned buy is 400, which is on the low side but I suspect is sufficient for now. More could probably be ordered if necessary; I think they come off the same AGM-158 assembly line.

In the future the AShM role will probably be filled by hypersonics, probably by a descendent of HACM.
If they had went with ASALM, they could have made a Mach 5.4 hypersonic cruise missile that can fly 300 miles decade ago.
 

seruriermarshal

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
May 4, 2008
Messages
1,050
Reaction score
242
Lockheed Martin And Thales Australia Finalize Teaming Agreement To Develop Sovereign Weapons Manufacturing Capabilities In Australia
MELBOURNE/CANBERRA, Australia, April 21, 2021 – Lockheed Martin (NYSE: LMT) and Thales Australia have finalized a teaming agreement advancing the delivery of an Australian guided weapons manufacturing capability in support of a sovereign national guided weapons enterprise.
The agreement will see experienced strategic industry partners in Lockheed Martin and Thales Australia cooperate in the design, development and production of Lockheed Martin’s Long Range Anti-Ship Missile – Surface Launch (LRASM SL) variant, with a specific focus on booster and rocket motor technologies.
Lockheed Martin and Thales Australia have unique and complementary backgrounds and expertise in the manufacture and delivery of weapons capabilities that together will provide further impetus for the Australian Government’s objective of expanding the sovereign defence industrial and manufacturing capability. It will bring Australia a step closer to a sovereign guided weapons capability.
This teaming agreement advances the proven and mature LRASM maritime strike capability across further platforms for the next generation of surface and ground launch domains.
Joe North, Chief Executive, Lockheed Martin Australia, said that the teaming agreement represents not only a significant commitment to the delivery of sovereign guided weapons manufacturing capabilities in Australia but recognises that local industry is also investing in opportunities for local manufacturing and production.
“This is a step change for future weapons manufacture in Australia – through technology transfer and innovation we see the opportunity to drive the creation of a skilled local workforce, build resiliency in supply chains and help secure Australia’s sovereign defence capabilities for now and into the future,” said North.
“We are delighted to be teaming with Thales Australia and our agreement acknowledges the confidence we have in Thales Australia and its’ strong safety culture in the delivery of weapons capabilities.”
“Lockheed Martin has a proud history of successfully developing and delivering world class capabilities to our customers. The opportunity to work with the team at Thales Australia, the largest manufacturer of explosive ordnance to the Australian Defence Force, with a successful track record of delivering ammunition, propellants, explosives and related services has the makings of a great partnership for the future.”
Chris Jenkins, Chief Executive Officer at Thales Australia said the development of booster and rocket motor technology for the LRASM under the teaming agreement with Lockheed Martin was an indicator of the advanced R&D and industrial capabilities offered by Thales Australia to support a sovereign guided weapons manufacturing capability.
“High performance propellants and explosives for warheads, solid fuel rocket motor manufacturing and associated R&D and support services delivered by Thales Australia are essential to achieve sovereign guided weapons capability and we are looking forward to working with Lockheed Martin in support of the Australian Defence Force’s (ADF) objectives.
“Thales currently employs over 650 skilled staff to manufacture munitions systems for the ADF and allied forces. And we work with over 500 Australian small and medium enterprises and a large range of weapons systems Primes to ensure the ADF receives the locally manufactured munitions they need.
“Through the signing of this agreement with Lockheed Martin, we look forward to expanding our existing booster and rocket motor production lines to design, develop and manufacture LRASM SL.”

 

Moose

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2010
Messages
1,418
Reaction score
420
If they can beat the cost/performance of the Mk114 booster LM used for their VL-LRASM tests, they will attract a healthy amount of interest.
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
2,350
Reaction score
479
LRASM production is tied to JASSM-ER production and these go hand in hand (hence the current state of inventory). The US Navy has drawn a pretty clear and logical line as far as what it is acquiring that can strike surface targets. LRASM as an air-launched weapon with the F-18E/F's and P-8A's being the two platforms for now. Perhaps the F-35C's later. For VLS launches there is the Block V Tomahawk as a multi-mission (with seeker eventually) subsonic option, and the SM-6 1A and 1B as the high speed options. The two offer a good combination. The Tomahawk is a Navy program so it dictates the production rates and the rate at which the Block IV's are upgraded to V. They are also capable of striking land and maritime targets. The SM-6 IB is going to be a high speed (Mach 5) weapon so brings in a totally different capability. So I feel they are better with this combination than trying to integrate the LRASM into the MK41. Both are near-mid term capabilities (2023-2025 induction). NSM arms the SSC fleet and perhaps the MH-60 fleet down the road. That is a pretty good portfolio of weapons for the near to medium term as things like THOR-ER and other R&D efforts are invested in at the OSD level. The biggest value the LRASM brings is via its integration with the USAF bomber fleet and to a lesser extent the Navy P-8 fleet. Just my 2 cents.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Top