DARPA Long Range Anti-ship Missile (LRASM)

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
14,474
Reaction score
3,359
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.
LRASM, as the USN currently envisions it, depends on having a carrier or P-8 on hand at all times. LRASM has far more range, and is almost certainly cheaper, than SM-6. It's also far more survivable against enemy surface ships than Tomahawk. Tomahawk isn't going to be worth much in that department as they're not stealthy at all and will pretty much be picked off like shooting fish in a barrel. LRASM on B-1Bs would be awesome but it appears that development is token at best. They may have already cancelled those plans.
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
2,522
Reaction score
795
The LRASM lacks the range of the TLAM or the speed of the SM-6 1B. It is also single mission focused and limited in terms of annual production rates, at least in the short term. When combined these are enough reasons for the Navy to not want them on the DDG fleet especially given its other investments elsewhere (SM-6 1B, Block V Tomahawk, IR-CPS, and NSM are all new Navy weapons/variants that are being inducted or developed right now). There is only so much room on the DDG-51's in terms of VL cell capacity and all the new weapons coming online. So the Navy is likely to prioritize multi-mission capability and investments that have a higher return.

The US Air Force declared EOC on the LRASM and B-1 in 2018 about a year before the Navy declared EOC on the Super Hornet. There were also rumors around based on CSAF testimony from last year that the AF could have another classified anti-ship weapon in development. Either way, the USAF plans to maintain a limited stock of LRASM's and the B-1 for now is the platform that will be able to launch the weapon. There are likely more ways each service can strike ships at sea than they are able to share publicly but given we went from "just the Harpoon" to the NSM, LRASM, SM-61B, Block V Tomahawk, and possibly other weapons (in a matter of just a few years) is incredibly encouraging in terms of adequately investing in this mission area. The platforms and integrations chosen for the LRASM fit just fine for the interim nature of this capability and the sub100 annual missile buy rate.

 
Last edited:

Moose

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2010
Messages
1,538
Reaction score
647
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.
I don't imagine the lack of interest due to the booster. More like just the typical USN shortsightedness.
The Aussies are concerned about producing and selling stuff more than who does or doesn't buy VL-LRASM.The Mk114 is used for more than test flights. If they can produce something that's got a significant leg up, they're gonna sell some boosters.
 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
14,474
Reaction score
3,359
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.
I don't imagine the lack of interest due to the booster. More like just the typical USN shortsightedness.
The Aussies are concerned about producing and selling stuff more than who does or doesn't buy VL-LRASM.The Mk114 is used for more than test flights. If they can produce something that's got a significant leg up, they're gonna sell some boosters.
You tied the booster to VL-LRASM. Why would anybody think you were talking about a different application?
 

Josh_TN

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 4, 2019
Messages
1,044
Reaction score
699
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.
LRASM, as the USN currently envisions it, depends on having a carrier or P-8 on hand at all times. LRASM has far more range, and is almost certainly cheaper, than SM-6. It's also far more survivable against enemy surface ships than Tomahawk. Tomahawk isn't going to be worth much in that department as they're not stealthy at all and will pretty much be picked off like shooting fish in a barrel. LRASM on B-1Bs would be awesome but it appears that development is token at best. They may have already cancelled those plans.

LRASM is like 3 million, so not really a very different price point than SM-6IA which is 4 million. MST Va is 1.5 but suffers from the subsonic speed and larger RCS issue. B-1s have reached IOC with LRASM before F-18 and 400 weapons are on order; I think roughly a hundred might have been delivered.
 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
14,474
Reaction score
3,359
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.
LRASM, as the USN currently envisions it, depends on having a carrier or P-8 on hand at all times. LRASM has far more range, and is almost certainly cheaper, than SM-6. It's also far more survivable against enemy surface ships than Tomahawk. Tomahawk isn't going to be worth much in that department as they're not stealthy at all and will pretty much be picked off like shooting fish in a barrel. LRASM on B-1Bs would be awesome but it appears that development is token at best. They may have already cancelled those plans.

LRASM is like 3 million, so not really a very different price point than SM-6IA which is 4 million. MST Va is 1.5 but suffers from the subsonic speed and larger RCS issue. B-1s have reached IOC with LRASM before F-18 and 400 weapons are on order; I think roughly a hundred might have been delivered.
400 spread across the globe is pretty thin.
 

Moose

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2010
Messages
1,538
Reaction score
647
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.
I don't imagine the lack of interest due to the booster. More like just the typical USN shortsightedness.
The Aussies are concerned about producing and selling stuff more than who does or doesn't buy VL-LRASM.The Mk114 is used for more than test flights. If they can produce something that's got a significant leg up, they're gonna sell some boosters.
You tied the booster to VL-LRASM. Why would anybody think you were talking about a different application?
The LM press release in the post immediately before mine ties it to VL-LRASM, I was merely musing that besting Mk114 would make the booster attractive for other programs. Wouldn't it be nice if VL-ASROC had an off-the-shelf upgrade option?
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
2,522
Reaction score
795
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.
LRASM, as the USN currently envisions it, depends on having a carrier or P-8 on hand at all times. LRASM has far more range, and is almost certainly cheaper, than SM-6. It's also far more survivable against enemy surface ships than Tomahawk. Tomahawk isn't going to be worth much in that department as they're not stealthy at all and will pretty much be picked off like shooting fish in a barrel. LRASM on B-1Bs would be awesome but it appears that development is token at best. They may have already cancelled those plans.

LRASM is like 3 million, so not really a very different price point than SM-6IA which is 4 million. MST Va is 1.5 but suffers from the subsonic speed and larger RCS issue. B-1s have reached IOC with LRASM before F-18 and 400 weapons are on order; I think roughly a hundred might have been delivered.
400 spread across the globe is pretty thin.

Right but they have not yet indicated that this is the upper limit and they continue to fund production. One of the problems is that LRASM procurement coincides with the USAF expansion of the planned JASSM-ER inventory (aprox. 10,000 missiles) and the development of a new variant. So in the short run, this will likely mean <100 missile orders per year as they expand the production facilities etc. But then this was always meant to be an interim option and it isn't the only Anti-ship weapon in the Navy portfolio (and like the AF portfolio as well). I think as things become clearer (in the coming years) on what the capability the 21" SM-6 1B brings to the table with the significantly higher speed and a new warhead, that will influence the timelines of what additional capability the Navy looks to field.
 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
14,474
Reaction score
3,359
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.
I don't imagine the lack of interest due to the booster. More like just the typical USN shortsightedness.
The Aussies are concerned about producing and selling stuff more than who does or doesn't buy VL-LRASM.The Mk114 is used for more than test flights. If they can produce something that's got a significant leg up, they're gonna sell some boosters.
You tied the booster to VL-LRASM. Why would anybody think you were talking about a different application?
The LM press release in the post immediately before mine ties it to VL-LRASM, I was merely musing that besting Mk114 would make the booster attractive for other programs. Wouldn't it be nice if VL-ASROC had an off-the-shelf upgrade option?
That IS the VL-ASROC booster. ;)
 

Moose

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2010
Messages
1,538
Reaction score
647
Let's try this again: We take Mk114 as baseline for a VL-LRASM booster, and we consider LM's announced teaming with the Aussies is seeking a production VL-LRASM booster. To be worth it to LM, it needs enough of a performance and/or cost advantage over M114 to make a difference to their customers. To meet the Australian desire for promoting domestic production, it needs to be more than just a one-off.

If they're unsuccessful, it's nothing and goes nowhere. But if it succeeds, now there's a "like Mk114 but 'better'" booster for VL-LRASM on the market. And just as the original went from ASROC to the cruise missile, the new one may just go the opposite direction.
 

Josh_TN

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 4, 2019
Messages
1,044
Reaction score
699
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.
LRASM, as the USN currently envisions it, depends on having a carrier or P-8 on hand at all times. LRASM has far more range, and is almost certainly cheaper, than SM-6. It's also far more survivable against enemy surface ships than Tomahawk. Tomahawk isn't going to be worth much in that department as they're not stealthy at all and will pretty much be picked off like shooting fish in a barrel. LRASM on B-1Bs would be awesome but it appears that development is token at best. They may have already cancelled those plans.

LRASM is like 3 million, so not really a very different price point than SM-6IA which is 4 million. MST Va is 1.5 but suffers from the subsonic speed and larger RCS issue. B-1s have reached IOC with LRASM before F-18 and 400 weapons are on order; I think roughly a hundred might have been delivered.
400 spread across the globe is pretty thin.

No argument, though I’d say it’s weapon only needed for PLAN targets, so it probably would not have to be spread across the world. I believe only one CONUS based B-1 wing trains for that mission/weapon.
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
2,522
Reaction score
795
I believe you are correct. I think the LRASM acquisition or at least the demand signal came from PACOM just like some of other weapons out there.
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
2,522
Reaction score
795
The Offensive Anti-Surface Warfare Increment 2 program is back, with the Navy looking at the competitive landscape to fulfill this air-launched weapon. This would be a follow on to the LRASM.

The Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR), Program Executive Office for Unmanned Aviation and Strike Weapons (PEO (U&W)), Precision Strike Weapons Program Office (PMA-201) announces its intention to design, develop and procure a carrier aircraft-based offensive strike weapon. The Department of the Navy is developing the Offensive Anti-Surface Warfare Increment 2 (OASuW Inc 2) based on recently completed OASuW analysis activities. OASuW Inc 2 is envisioned to be a long-range, carrier-based, strike fighter aircraft-launched weapon system providing ASuW capabilities. The program is part of the Navy's Long Range Fires investment approach to meet objectives of the National Defense Strategy. As a key component of this strategy, OASuW Inc 2 will address advanced threats from engagement distances allowing the Navy to operate in, and control, contested battle space in littoral waters and anti-access/area denial (A2/AD) environments.

 

Josh_TN

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 4, 2019
Messages
1,044
Reaction score
699
Wasn’t the old Incr2 for a surface launched weapon? Another air launched weapon seems redundant. At some point they should probably adopt a hypersonic weapon but I’d just buy into the USAFs HACM for that.
 

TomS

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
4,882
Reaction score
2,395
Likely the programmatic cover to buy JSM?
 

Josh_TN

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 4, 2019
Messages
1,044
Reaction score
699
That was my one thought. Are they required to have to have a program and competition vice buying it off the shelf? I mean, isn’t it already being integrated with F-35 and F-18 anyway for foreign customers? It should be an easy buy, though I don’t see what it brings to the table compared to LRASM outside F-35 internal carriage. I’d argue with a 200nm+ range, internal carriage isn’t particularly needed.

What I would like to see is a new version of AGM-158 that has a warhead more optimized for naval targets...something that’s more HE and less penetrating case (75% of the warhead weight is Ti), ideally smaller to allow for more fuel to extend range.
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
2,522
Reaction score
795
Wasn’t the old Incr2 for a surface launched weapon? Another air launched weapon seems redundant. At some point they should probably adopt a hypersonic weapon but I’d just buy into the USAFs HACM for that.

The NG-LAW focused on the land attack component. Inc 2. evolved into an AL application. The Navy is trying to also develop a hypersonic weapon for its strike fighter fleet. The problem is that the AFRL-DARPA HAWC systems (LM and Raytheon) are around 20 ft. in length thus about 5 ft longer than what the AC weapon elevators can accommodate. Air Force's HACM is likely going to be derived from one of them. The Navy has been trying to figure out how to cut their length by about 25% so if one of its new hypersonic efforts bear fruit or look promising then I'm sure that solution would be looked at for this as well.

Likely the programmatic cover to buy JSM?

Two years to develop preliminary designs and 4 year to develop what they down select seems to indicate a clean sheet approach. The JSM is shorter ranged than the LRASM and will be a step backwards in just about every possible way.
 

Josh_TN

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 4, 2019
Messages
1,044
Reaction score
699
If they aren’t going hypersonic yet (good point about weapons elevators that I hadn’t considered), does that mean they are going supersonic? What else is there between hypersonic and LRASM?
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
2,522
Reaction score
795
If they aren’t going hypersonic yet (good point about weapons elevators that I hadn’t considered), does that mean they are going supersonic? What else is there between hypersonic and LRASM?

I think there could be several potential solutions based on what the industry responds with. The Navy has hypersonic and high supersonic weapons that it is investing in at the moment at least in the R&D sphere. Increment 2 would have to naturally be more effective than increment 1, and the reference to long range and "peer surface combatants" is another hint that they want a higher end weapon. In one of their justifications to pursue both air-breathing scramjets and boost glide systems, the R&E team has always mentioned the easier seeker integration work on the former as an advantage (also the size and tactical platform comptability) so I think that this could be one of the derivatives of whatever work the navy is doing around air-launched hypersonic/high-supersonic that Boeing, and others have recently been mentioned about.
 
Last edited:

Cordy

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Nov 5, 2019
Messages
121
Reaction score
108
If they aren’t going hypersonic yet (good point about weapons elevators that I hadn’t considered), does that mean they are going supersonic? What else is there between hypersonic and LRASM?

I think there could be several potential solutions based on what the industry responds with. The Navy has hypersonic and high supersonic weapons that it is investing in at the moment at least in the R&D sphere. Increment 2 would have to naturally be more effective than increment 1, and the reference to long range and "peer surface combatants" is another hint that they want a higher end weapon. In one of their justifications to pursue both air-breathing scramjets and boost glide systems, the R&E team has always mentioned the easier seeker integration work on the former as an advantage (also the size and tactical platform comptability) so I think that this could be one of the derivatives of whatever work the navy is doing around air-launched hypersonic/high-supersonic that Boeing, and others have recently been mentioned about.
Why is Navy not joining the Air Force who are planning to award contracts for its SiAW missile, Stand-in Attack Weapon to Boeing, L3Harris, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman and Raytheon. A development of the new Navy AGM-88G, AARGM-ER, sized to fit in the F-35A and F-35C weapons bay so as to keep its stealth capability, with a new warhead, electronic safe and arming fuze, universal armament interface and anti-radiation homing. USAF wants it in operation within five years. Presume contract will be $1+ billion plus.

If the argument is the SiAW hasn’t the range and not Mach 5+ what are NAVAIR budgeting, $10+ billion and 10 years before IOC. The Best is the Enemy of Good Enough?
 

Attachments

  • AARGM_ER_fit_check_in F-35_weapon_bay.jpg
    AARGM_ER_fit_check_in F-35_weapon_bay.jpg
    48 KB · Views: 31

Josh_TN

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 4, 2019
Messages
1,044
Reaction score
699
The USN is the originator of the AGM-88G, so that is already joining their inventory. It has a secondary anti-ship role but incr2 clearly intends to be something with longer range.
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
2,522
Reaction score
795
That navy will award (or has awarded) the LOT-1 and 2 production contracts for ER-AARGM this year. It should retain the baseline AARGM's secondary anti-ship role as Josh_TN pointed which would come quite handy for aircraft like the F-35A and F-35C which can carry it internally and get a lot closer to their targets. But the OASuW Inc 2 is going to be a dedicated anti-ship missile system and something that is likely a lot longer ranged with a more relevant warhead.
 

Ronny

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Jul 20, 2019
Messages
547
Reaction score
340
If they aren’t going hypersonic yet (good point about weapons elevators that I hadn’t considered), does that mean they are going supersonic? What else is there between hypersonic and LRASM?

I think there could be several potential solutions based on what the industry responds with. The Navy has hypersonic and high supersonic weapons that it is investing in at the moment at least in the R&D sphere. Increment 2 would have to naturally be more effective than increment 1, and the reference to long range and "peer surface combatants" is another hint that they want a higher end weapon. In one of their justifications to pursue both air-breathing scramjets and boost glide systems, the R&E team has always mentioned the easier seeker integration work on the former as an advantage (also the size and tactical platform comptability) so I think that this could be one of the derivatives of whatever work the navy is doing around air-launched hypersonic/high-supersonic that Boeing, and others have recently been mentioned about.
Why is Navy not joining the Air Force who are planning to award contracts for its SiAW missile, Stand-in Attack Weapon to Boeing, L3Harris, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman and Raytheon. A development of the new Navy AGM-88G, AARGM-ER, sized to fit in the F-35A and F-35C weapons bay so as to keep its stealth capability, with a new warhead, electronic safe and arming fuze, universal armament interface and anti-radiation homing. USAF wants it in operation within five years. Presume contract will be $1+ billion plus.

If the argument is the SiAW hasn’t the range and not Mach 5+ what are NAVAIR budgeting, $10+ billion and 10 years before IOC. The Best is the Enemy of Good Enough?
Firstly already developed AARGM-ER so spend money Siaw is kind of redundant unless it can bring some unique capability such as being hypersonic or using ramjet propulsion system like the THOR-ER program.
Secondly, they can also of spend money on air launched SM-6, which is probably quicker and lower risk and you can have an anti ship missile with about Mach 4.83 top speed and can fly out to around 463 km
 

Attachments

  • BFFC5F4B-8578-45D0-9526-CB32C0C86877.png
    BFFC5F4B-8578-45D0-9526-CB32C0C86877.png
    3.2 MB · Views: 26

Josh_TN

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 4, 2019
Messages
1,044
Reaction score
699
That would be an SM-2* in the photo, but good point - the Standard series of missiles would provide a quick development path to a high speed air launched weapon. I doubt SM-6 with the mk72 booter would be able to be suspended from a fighter, however SM-2 BlockIIIC would be a candidate - it uses the SM-6 terminal homing. As far as I can tell it is SM-6 without the booster. There is also a SM-6 block 1B variant that uses a wider 21" main motor; if it wasn't too heavy it also could be an option. All of the SM variants would be near hypersonic if launched from an aircraft, particularly if the aircraft itself was super sonic during launch.

EDIT: it appears that IS an SM-6.
 
Last edited:

TomS

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
4,882
Reaction score
2,395
That would be an SM-2 in the photo, but good point - the Standard series of missiles would provide a quick development path to a high speed air launched weapon. I doubt SM-6 with the mk72 booter would be able to be suspended from a fighter, however SM-2 BlockIIIC would be a candidate - it uses the SM-6 terminal homing. As far as I can tell it is SM-6 without the booster. There is also a SM-6 block 1B variant that uses a wider 21" main motor; if it wasn't too heavy it also could be an option. All of the SM variants would be near hypersonic if launched from an aircraft, particularly if the aircraft itself was super sonic during launch.

Are you sure that's an SM-2? It's got the really long section between the strakes and tail fins that seems to be associated with SM-6.

Definitely agree on the Mark 72 -- hanging that on a pylon isn't feasible.

Not even sure about the full caliber upper stage. It could weight easily 3000 pounds or more (cross sectional area is more than doubled going from 13.5-inch diameter to 21-inch diameter)
 

Jimmo952

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Sep 21, 2020
Messages
59
Reaction score
68
That would be an SM-2 in the photo, but good point - the Standard series of missiles would provide a quick development path to a high speed air launched weapon. I doubt SM-6 with the mk72 booter would be able to be suspended from a fighter, however SM-2 BlockIIIC would be a candidate - it uses the SM-6 terminal homing. As far as I can tell it is SM-6 without the booster. There is also a SM-6 block 1B variant that uses a wider 21" main motor; if it wasn't too heavy it also could be an option. All of the SM variants would be near hypersonic if launched from an aircraft, particularly if the aircraft itself was super sonic during launch.

The initial DARPA study that led to the development of LRASM called for it to be paired with a high-speed anti-ship weapon.

An air-launched SM6 variant would seem to give the Navy what DARPA called for in that study.
 

Ronny

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Jul 20, 2019
Messages
547
Reaction score
340
That would be an SM-2 in the photo, but good point - the Standard series of missiles would provide a quick development path to a high speed air launched weapon. I doubt SM-6 with the mk72 booter would be able to be suspended from a fighter, however SM-2 BlockIIIC would be a candidate - it uses the SM-6 terminal homing. As far as I can tell it is SM-6 without the booster. There is also a SM-6 block 1B variant that uses a wider 21" main motor; if it wasn't too heavy it also could be an option. All of the SM variants would be near hypersonic if launched from an aircraft, particularly if the aircraft itself was super sonic during launch.

Are you sure that's an SM-2? It's got the really long section between the strakes and tail fins that seems to be associated with SM-6.

Definitely agree on the Mark 72 -- hanging that on a pylon isn't feasible.

Not even sure about the full caliber upper stage. It could weight easily 3000 pounds or more (cross sectional area is more than doubled going from 13.5-inch diameter to 21-inch diameter)
An F-35 has 2 stations that can support 5000 lbs missile.
 

Ronny

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Jul 20, 2019
Messages
547
Reaction score
340
That would be an SM-2 in the photo, but good point - the Standard series of missiles would provide a quick development path to a high speed air launched weapon. I doubt SM-6 with the mk72 booter would be able to be suspended from a fighter, however SM-2 BlockIIIC would be a candidate - it uses the SM-6 terminal homing. As far as I can tell it is SM-6 without the booster. There is also a SM-6 block 1B variant that uses a wider 21" main motor; if it wasn't too heavy it also could be an option. All of the SM variants would be near hypersonic if launched from an aircraft, particularly if the aircraft itself was super sonic during launch.
That an SM-6 without booster as far as I know
RIM-66A (SM-1MR block I) with MK-27 dual thrust rocket motor has a top speed of Mach 1.8 and max range of 32 km
RIM-66B (SM-1MR Block V) with MK-56 dual thrust rocket motor has a top speed is Mach 3.5 and max range of 46 km
RIM-66C (SM-2MR Block I) with the same MK-56 rocket motor but with new INS guidance logic increased its range to 74 km but keep same top speed.
RIM-66G (SM-2MR Block II) with the new Thiokol MK-104 rocket motor has a top speed of Mach 3.5 and max range of 166 km.
RIM-156A (SM-2ER Block IV) still use the same MK-104 rocket motor but with the additional MK-72 booster, range got extended to 370 km
RIM-174 (SM-6) same MK-104 rocket motor and MK-72 booster as RIM-156A but use an active radar seeker instead

AGM-78 which is an air launched derivative of RIM-66A (SM-1MR block I) with the same airframe and the same MK-27 MoD 4 dual thrust rocket motor. The only thing changed is the AGM-45A-3Aa seeker. That missile has a top speed of Mach 2.5 and max range of 90 km. In short, compared to ground launched version, the air launched version of standard missile can increase top speed by 1.38 times and max range by 2.8 times.

Air launched SM-6 doesn't have the MK-72 booster but it still got the MK-104 motor section, so the kinematic when launched from ground will be similar to RIM-66G (SM-2MR block II), when launched from air, we can expect it to reach top speed of Mach 4.83 and max range of 465 km.
 

Josh_TN

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 4, 2019
Messages
1,044
Reaction score
699
Yes, I think you are both correct and it is SM-6 sans Mk72. Original post corrected.
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
2,522
Reaction score
795
SM-6 lacks the warhead to be a credible primary Anti ship missile that the inc 2 follow on to the LRASM is. It also lacks a passive targeting option. It works if it is a multi purpose capability (like the VLS launched SM-6), but it will be sub optimal IMO as a primary anti ship weapon.
 

Jimmo952

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Sep 21, 2020
Messages
59
Reaction score
68
SM-6 lacks the warhead to be a credible primary Anti ship missile that the inc 2 follow on to the LRASM is. It also lacks a passive targeting option. It works if it is a multi purpose capability (like the VLS launched SM-6), but it will be sub optimal IMO as a primary anti ship weapon.

With SM-6 in anti-ship mode, you are counting primarily on the kinetic energy at impact, which should be considerable.

The Navy's tested that but has not made the results public. They don't seem to have abandoned the idea of using SM-6 in anti-ship mode. Read into that what you will.
 

Josh_TN

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 4, 2019
Messages
1,044
Reaction score
699
SM-6 lacks the warhead to be a credible primary Anti ship missile that the inc 2 follow on to the LRASM is. It also lacks a passive targeting option. It works if it is a multi purpose capability (like the VLS launched SM-6), but it will be sub optimal IMO as a primary anti ship weapon.

I suspect the SM-6 on the F-18 is actually being tested for AAM use, those presumably it could also have a secondary AShM role.
 

Josh_TN

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 4, 2019
Messages
1,044
Reaction score
699
SM-6 lacks the warhead to be a credible primary Anti ship missile that the inc 2 follow on to the LRASM is. It also lacks a passive targeting option. It works if it is a multi purpose capability (like the VLS launched SM-6), but it will be sub optimal IMO as a primary anti ship weapon.

With SM-6 in anti-ship mode, you are counting primarily on the kinetic energy at impact, which should be considerable.

The Navy's tested that but has not made the results public. They don't seem to have abandoned the idea of using SM-6 in anti-ship mode. Read into that what you will.

A one ton weapon hitting at supersonic speed in a steep dive should ensure that a destroyer sized target never plays the violin again, even if it fails to sink it. I believe USS Ruben James was sunk as a an SM-6 target, so clearly it is adequate for frigate sized targets.
 

Jimmo952

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Sep 21, 2020
Messages
59
Reaction score
68
SM-6 lacks the warhead to be a credible primary Anti ship missile that the inc 2 follow on to the LRASM is. It also lacks a passive targeting option. It works if it is a multi purpose capability (like the VLS launched SM-6), but it will be sub optimal IMO as a primary anti ship weapon.

With SM-6 in anti-ship mode, you are counting primarily on the kinetic energy at impact, which should be considerable.

The Navy's tested that but has not made the results public. They don't seem to have abandoned the idea of using SM-6 in anti-ship mode. Read into that what you will.

A one ton weapon hitting at supersonic speed in a steep dive should ensure that a destroyer sized target never plays the violin again, even if it fails to sink it. I believe USS Ruben James was sunk as a an SM-6 target, so clearly it is adequate for frigate sized targets.

Yep. I suspect it leaves a heck of an owie.
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
2,522
Reaction score
795
SM-6 lacks the warhead to be a credible primary Anti ship missile that the inc 2 follow on to the LRASM is. It also lacks a passive targeting option. It works if it is a multi purpose capability (like the VLS launched SM-6), but it will be sub optimal IMO as a primary anti ship weapon.

With SM-6 in anti-ship mode, you are counting primarily on the kinetic energy at impact, which should be considerable.

The Navy's tested that but has not made the results public. They don't seem to have abandoned the idea of using SM-6 in anti-ship mode. Read into that what you will.

A one ton weapon hitting at supersonic speed in a steep dive should ensure that a destroyer sized target never plays the violin again, even if it fails to sink it. I believe USS Ruben James was sunk as a an SM-6 target, so clearly it is adequate for frigate sized targets.

So why is the Navy beefing up the warhead on the SM-6 1B? Surely they could have retained the small warhead of the 1A and gotten some extra range from the 1B given how the former's warhead is sufficient? In reality however, a dedicated anti-ship weapon designed for the peer combatant threat, and as a follow-on to the LRASM will or at least should be capable of a lot more. Higher speed and varying trajectory with active and passive seeker modes perhaps. And probably a larger than 60 kg warhead. SM-6 1A is fine as a multi-mission weapon where its primary purpose is SBT and OTH defense. But this is an anti-ship weapon. Just one mission.
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
2,522
Reaction score
795
SM-6 lacks the warhead to be a credible primary Anti ship missile that the inc 2 follow on to the LRASM is. It also lacks a passive targeting option. It works if it is a multi purpose capability (like the VLS launched SM-6), but it will be sub optimal IMO as a primary anti ship weapon.

With SM-6 in anti-ship mode, you are counting primarily on the kinetic energy at impact, which should be considerable.

The Navy's tested that but has not made the results public. They don't seem to have abandoned the idea of using SM-6 in anti-ship mode. Read into that what you will.

Well Yes. The Navy added that capability to the main interceptor. It is not primarily an Anti-Ship missile but one that can do that mission. Same with the AARGM. It isn't primarily an Anti-Ship missile though the Navy has added that capability to it and likely also the ER-AARGM. In its outreach to industry, the Navy hasn't really indicated that it intends to develop a multi-mission weapon. OASuW Inc 2 is an AL ASuW. So I suspect that it will be optimized for such and focus on just that mission, and not intercepting ballistic missiles, cruise missiles or long range AAW. If that is the case, and given the Navy wants to spend roughly 6 years to get there, then that points to it wanting something new and not a repurposed naval SAM.
 

Josh_TN

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 4, 2019
Messages
1,044
Reaction score
699
I agree Incr2 is probably not air launched SM6, but I think that AAM would definitely have that capacity as well. As far as I know the anti surface mode was just a software upgrade.
 

Josh_TN

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 4, 2019
Messages
1,044
Reaction score
699
If you think about, the USN has developed a really deep portfolio of dual purpose anti shipping weapons, outside the dedicated LRASM.
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
2,522
Reaction score
795
Yes and that is the impressive bit. The Block V Tomahawk and the SM-6s provide a heck of a lot of flexibility and volume. Once the FFG’s begin to deploy that will only add to this though I’m not sure the SM-2 IIIC had the secondary ASuW capability. It’s a great base to build future weapons on like the THOR-ER etc.
 

Similar threads

Top