DARPA Long Range Anti-ship Missile (LRASM)

[zjz]

LRASM achieves EOC on USN F/A-18E/F | ADBR

The Lockheed Martin AGM-158C long range anti-ship missile (LRASM) has achieved an early operational capability (EOC) milestone with the US Navy on the Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet. Already cleared for…

adbr.com.au

 

[sferrin]

Lockheed and Thales Australia to develop technology for LRASM SL

Lockheed Martin and Thales Australia have agreed to develop booster and rocket motor technology for the Long Range Anti-Ship Missile (LRASM) – Surface Launch (SL) variant.

www.naval-technology.com

 

[TomS]

Lockheed and Thales Australia to develop technology for LRASM SL

Lockheed Martin and Thales Australia have agreed to develop booster and rocket motor technology for the Long Range Anti-Ship Missile (LRASM) – Surface Launch (SL) variant.

www.naval-technology.com

Hopefully that means Australia at least is committed to buying some? Not sure the USN will, given all the other budget pressures (OASUW Inc2 going hypersonic) and the availability of MST.

 

[Moose]

Lockheed and Thales Australia to develop technology for LRASM SL

Lockheed Martin and Thales Australia have agreed to develop booster and rocket motor technology for the Long Range Anti-Ship Missile (LRASM) – Surface Launch (SL) variant.

www.naval-technology.com

Hopefully that means Australia at least is committed to buying some? Not sure the USN will, given all the other budget pressures (OASUW Inc2 going hypersonic) and the availability of MST.

LRASM-SL will at least be a hedge/insurance with HALO an unknown quantity. And Lockheed's gonna sell the hell out of it. I'd be shocked if the USN never buys any.

 

[Josh_TN]

The USN seems to be making surface attack a secondary capability for as many missiles as it can, but I get the impression it still views aircraft as its primary anti surface platforms. If a Tom or SM-6 can also bust a ship, great, but I don’t think they are going to dedicate dev money or VLS cells to the cause.

 

[sferrin]

The USN seems to be making surface attack a secondary capability for as many missiles as it can, but I get the impression it still views aircraft as its primary anti surface platforms. If a Tom or SM-6 can also bust a ship, great, but I don’t think they are going to dedicate dev money or VLS cells to the cause.

Given the complete shitshow they've made of ship and aircraft procurement that would track. I can't remember the last time anybody accused the USN of being wise.

 

[TomS]

LRASM achieves EOC on USN F/A-18E/F | ADBR

The Lockheed Martin AGM-158C long range anti-ship missile (LRASM) has achieved an early operational capability (EOC) milestone with the US Navy on the Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet. Already cleared for…

adbr.com.au

Photo of the model of LRASM-SL (VLS), similar to the drawing above. (Source is Naval News) You can see that they've had to rethink the canister design to make the missile fit -- it loses the corrugated stiffening alongside the missile fuselage, because it probably would not quite fit if that was kept.

Is it just me, or do the proportions of the LRASM missile here look different than the air-launched model (the black missile at the right of the photo)? Like, it maybe has a stretched fuselage, with a significantly longer forebody ahead of the wings (and probably a similar stretch after as well)?




Another shot of LRASM SL in flight for testing. This one doesn't seem to be stretched, so maybe it's just an optical illusion above? Source is Australian Defence

 

[Josh_TN]

USN passed on a VLS launched LRASM. I suspect the range was too limited for them; they intend to make a BGM-109 replacement that includes the anti-shipping mission in the future. For the moment the SM-6 and Blk V missiles will fill in for surface launch capability from Mk41s.

 

[Jimmo952]

USN passed on a VLS launched LRASM. I suspect the range was too limited for them; they intend to make a BGM-109 replacement that includes the anti-shipping mission in the future. For the moment the SM-6 and Blk V missiles will fill in for surface launch capability from Mk41s.

I thought the Aussies went with the NSM for shipboard use?

 

[TomS]

USN passed on a VLS launched LRASM. I suspect the range was too limited for them; they intend to make a BGM-109 replacement that includes the anti-shipping mission in the future. For the moment the SM-6 and Blk V missiles will fill in for surface launch capability from Mk41s.

They passed on LRASM in competition with NSM, right? No idea where LRASM-SL stands in terms of other future competitions (OASuW Inc 2 or whatever it's called now). But the desire to extend range would be consistent with a stretched fuselage that still fits inside the Mk 41 envelope, right?

 

[GTX]

USN passed on a VLS launched LRASM. I suspect the range was too limited for them; they intend to make a BGM-109 replacement that includes the anti-shipping mission in the future. For the moment the SM-6 and Blk V missiles will fill in for surface launch capability from Mk41s.

I thought the Aussies went with the NSM for shipboard use?

They have - NSM for ships AND LRASM for Aircraft:

Australia approved to buy JASSM-ER | ADBR

The US Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA) has advised that the US State Department has approved the possible foreign military sale (FMS) of the Lockheed Martin AGM-158B Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff…

adbr.com.au

 

[TomcatViP]

@TomS : the VL version on that stand looks stretched, notably ahead of the wing pivot location.

 

[bring_it_on]

Phase III: Tooling and Test Equipment for Increased Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile (JASSM) & Long-Range Anti-Ship Missile (LRASM) Production​

The scope of this contract modification includes direction to increase the JASSM/LRASM inventory to a yearly capacity rate of quantity 1,100 in the new JASSM production facility in Troy, AL in combination with the existing facility. In order to accomplish the new direction, tooling (including supplier tooling and special test equipment) is needed. This requirement is to procure equipment needed to increase JASSM/LRASM production to a maximum rate where installation is required. As Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control’s obligations under existing contracts continue, any Government-owned peculiar equipment will not be available to any second source. For subcontracting opportunities, please contact Althea Stearns, Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control, althea.l.stearns@lmco.com.

All interested vendors shall submit a response demonstrating their capability to provide JASSM missile production, supplier tooling, and test equipment to the Primary Point of Contact listed below. Proposals are not being requested or accepted at this time. As stipulated in FAR 15.201(e), responses to this notice are not considered offers and cannot be accepted by the Government to form a binding contract. No solicitation (Request for Proposal) exists at this time; therefore, do not request a copy of the solicitation. The decision to solicit for a contract shall be solely within the Government’s discretion...

SAM.gov

sam.gov

 

[Josh_TN]

Does anyone have production numbers for LRASM? That Taiwan wargame by CSIS mentioned that the expected inventory was ~400 missiles, with USAF only accounting for 50...I had thought the USAF put in an order for several hundred LRASM a year or two ago? It seems surprising to me that both the USN and USAF don't have combined orders totaling more than a thousand, given the obvious utility against their number one competitor.

 

[TomS]

Does anyone have production numbers for LRASM? That Taiwan wargame by CSIS mentioned that the expected inventory was ~400 missiles, with USAF only accounting for 50...I had thought the USAF put in an order for several hundred LRASM a year or two ago? It seems surprising to me that both the USN and USAF don't have combined orders totaling more than a thousand, given the obvious utility against their number one competitor.

It's still in (relatively) Low-Rate Initial Production. I count just about 310 ordered for the USAF, USN, and an unnamed FMS customer (probably Australia) in 5 Lots since 2017. The balance of USAF vs USN inventory isn't public but the USN has a lot more potential launch platforms.

 

[Josh_TN]

I think RAAF is the only other customer. Is there any technical reason LRASM production couldn't be increased? It seems like the natural short term solution to the PLAN surface fleet build up, and neither the USN nor USAF has a shortage of platforms, given that B-1s can carry two dozen. Presumably other AGM-158 platforms could be integrated with LRASM if that were truly an issue (F-15E, B-52).

 

[GTX]

It's still in (relatively) Low-Rate Initial Production. I count just about 310 ordered for the USAF, USN, and an unnamed FMS customer (probably Australia) in 5 Lots since 2017. The balance of USAF vs USN inventory isn't public but the USN has a lot more potential launch platforms.

Contract awarded for first Australian LRASM stocks? | ADBR

The USAF has awarded a US$414.2m (A$523m) contract to Lockheed Martin for the production of 137 AGM-158C Long Range Anti-Ship Missiles (LRASM) for an unnamed foreign military sales (FMS) customer…

adbr.com.au

 

[TomS]

It's still in (relatively) Low-Rate Initial Production. I count just about 310 ordered for the USAF, USN, and an unnamed FMS customer (probably Australia) in 5 Lots since 2017. The balance of USAF vs USN inventory isn't public but the USN has a lot more potential launch platforms.

Contract awarded for first Australian LRASM stocks? | ADBR

The USAF has awarded a US$414.2m (A$523m) contract to Lockheed Martin for the production of 137 AGM-158C Long Range Anti-Ship Missiles (LRASM) for an unnamed foreign military sales (FMS) customer…

adbr.com.au

Just be careful, because the 137 missiles in this order covered both US and FMS users (possibly more than one -- it's probably vague on purpose).

DoD places largest LRASM order | Shephard

FMS customers will be among the recipients of the AGM-158C missile.

www.shephardmedia.com

 

[CIC-TAO]

In FY24, AGM-158C3 was named LRASM-ER, but C3 does not seem to mention any reports about increasing the range.
A few years ago, LRASM1.1 mentioned increasing the range. Are they actually the same missile?

 

[Jimmo952]

In FY24, AGM-158C3 was named LRASM-ER, but C3 does not seem to mention any reports about increasing the range.
A few years ago, LRASM1.1 mentioned increasing the range. Are they actually the same missile?

I am not 100% sure but I think LRASM-ER incorporates additional changes beyond what was incorporated into 1.1.

I believe 1.1 ended up being seeker and communications upgrades.

Concerned parties seem intentionally vague.

 

[zjz]

I only recall that the JASSM-XR supposed to have a new wing for "Xtra" extended range .... But have not seen any picture of what this wing design looks like ....

 

[Jimmo952]

I only recall that the JASSM-XR supposed to have a new wing for "Xtra" extended range .... But have not seen any picture of what this wing design looks like ....

The LRASM-ER has a new wing, different motor and a smaller warhead.

I do not believe any pictures have been released.

 

[Josh_TN]

As I understand it:

AGM-158B: turbofan and additional fuel (ER)
AGM-158B2: redesigned wing for more range (XR?)
AGM-158B3: weapon datalink will be added
AGM-158D: all of the above plus new coating for reduced RF/IR signature

I’ve never heard of a smaller warhead variant, though it would make sense for range extension.

I’ve not heard LRASM had newer versions, though I assume any redesign of the wing to the base model will be applied to LRASM as well since it’s the same line. LRASM already has a WDL, and I presume it also has some kind of short range intra weapons DL that it uses for DToA geolocation (and likely to coordinate end game attacks).

 

[CIC-TAO]

a smaller warhead in the AGM-158 series?
I haven't heard of it either.

 

[NMaude]

I've been trying to find out information on the Mk114 booster motor but I haven't had much luck, for starters who manufactures the booster? Also:

What are its dimensions and weight? I've found out that it has a burn time of 5s and a thrust of 11,000Lb (Courtesy of a post by @Moose ) but that's about all.

 

[NMaude]

Thanks.

Who is CSD?

 

[NASA]

Thanks.

Who is CSD?

Chemical Systems Division a unit owned by P&W, was later bought by Aerojet

 

[sferrin]

I've been trying to find out information on the Mk114 booster motor but I haven't had much luck, for starters who manufactures the booster? Also:

What are its dimensions and weight? I've found out that it has a burn time of 5s and a thrust of 11,000Lb (Courtesy of a post by @Moose ) but that's about all.

Went looking, very difficult booster to track. The OG MK.111 booster was made by CSD, then MK.114 becomes a thing (no idea who makes it but I assume it would be UTC which is now gone), Aerojet now makes the Mk.135 booster for the TLAM which seems to be the successor to the MK.114. Attached is an image from Pioneers in Propulsion—A History of CSD Pratt & Whitney’s Solid Rocket Company

Geometrically, the Mk114 and the TLAM booster are completely different.

 

[NASA]

I've been trying to find out information on the Mk114 booster motor but I haven't had much luck, for starters who manufactures the booster? Also:

What are its dimensions and weight? I've found out that it has a burn time of 5s and a thrust of 11,000Lb (Courtesy of a post by @Moose ) but that's about all.

Went looking, very difficult booster to track. The OG MK.111 booster was made by CSD, then MK.114 becomes a thing (no idea who makes it but I assume it would be UTC which is now gone), Aerojet now makes the Mk.135 booster for the TLAM which seems to be the successor to the MK.114. Attached is an image from Pioneers in Propulsion—A History of CSD Pratt & Whitney’s Solid Rocket Company

Geometrically, the Mk114 and the TLAM booster are completely different.

View attachment 696997

View attachment 696998

Wow, thanks I needed that sanity check. I was sleep deprived and kept confusing the VLASROC motor with the TLAM one. I have still not managed to track down who makes the booster anymore, Aerojet doesn't claim it and Orbital/ATK and Thiokol had no claims on it as far as I can trace back.

 

[sferrin]

I've been trying to find out information on the Mk114 booster motor but I haven't had much luck, for starters who manufactures the booster? Also:

What are its dimensions and weight? I've found out that it has a burn time of 5s and a thrust of 11,000Lb (Courtesy of a post by @Moose ) but that's about all.

Went looking, very difficult booster to track. The OG MK.111 booster was made by CSD, then MK.114 becomes a thing (no idea who makes it but I assume it would be UTC which is now gone), Aerojet now makes the Mk.135 booster for the TLAM which seems to be the successor to the MK.114. Attached is an image from Pioneers in Propulsion—A History of CSD Pratt & Whitney’s Solid Rocket Company

Geometrically, the Mk114 and the TLAM booster are completely different.

View attachment 696997

View attachment 696998

Wow, thanks I needed that sanity check. I was sleep deprived and kept confusing the VLASROC motor with the TLAM one. I have still not managed to track down who makes the booster anymore, Aerojet doesn't claim it and Orbital/ATK and Thiokol had no claims on it as far as I can trace back.

Somebody, some time back, said LM made it, which is why they used that for the booster rather than the booster used on TLAM.

 

[Josh_TN]

I've been trying to find out information on the Mk114 booster motor but I haven't had much luck, for starters who manufactures the booster? Also:

What are its dimensions and weight? I've found out that it has a burn time of 5s and a thrust of 11,000Lb (Courtesy of a post by @Moose ) but that's about all.

Went looking, very difficult booster to track. The OG MK.111 booster was made by CSD, then MK.114 becomes a thing (no idea who makes it but I assume it would be UTC which is now gone), Aerojet now makes the Mk.135 booster for the TLAM which seems to be the successor to the MK.114. Attached is an image from Pioneers in Propulsion—A History of CSD Pratt & Whitney’s Solid Rocket Company

Geometrically, the Mk114 and the TLAM booster are completely different.

View attachment 696997

View attachment 696998

Wow, thanks I needed that sanity check. I was sleep deprived and kept confusing the VLASROC motor with the TLAM one. I have still not managed to track down who makes the booster anymore, Aerojet doesn't claim it and Orbital/ATK and Thiokol had no claims on it as far as I can trace back.

Somebody, some time back, said LM made it, which is why they used that for the booster rather than the booster used on TLAM.

Pretty sure that is correct, though I don’t think the TLAM booster gets the weapon as high up and so would involve a range reduction anyway.
Surface launched LRASM I think is dead anyway. I think surface launch results in too much of a range reduction and the USN prefers dual use weapons like MST and SM-6 for it’s limited mk41 load outs.

 

[NASA]

I've been trying to find out information on the Mk114 booster motor but I haven't had much luck, for starters who manufactures the booster? Also:

What are its dimensions and weight? I've found out that it has a burn time of 5s and a thrust of 11,000Lb (Courtesy of a post by @Moose ) but that's about all.

Went looking, very difficult booster to track. The OG MK.111 booster was made by CSD, then MK.114 becomes a thing (no idea who makes it but I assume it would be UTC which is now gone), Aerojet now makes the Mk.135 booster for the TLAM which seems to be the successor to the MK.114. Attached is an image from Pioneers in Propulsion—A History of CSD Pratt & Whitney’s Solid Rocket Company

Geometrically, the Mk114 and the TLAM booster are completely different.

View attachment 696997

View attachment 696998

Wow, thanks I needed that sanity check. I was sleep deprived and kept confusing the VLASROC motor with the TLAM one. I have still not managed to track down who makes the booster anymore, Aerojet doesn't claim it and Orbital/ATK and Thiokol had no claims on it as far as I can trace back.

Somebody, some time back, said LM made it, which is why they used that for the booster rather than the booster used on TLAM.

Pretty sure that is correct, though I don’t think the TLAM booster gets the weapon as high up and so would involve a range reduction anyway.
Surface launched LRASM I think is dead anyway. I think surface launch results in too much of a range reduction and the USN prefers dual use weapons like MST and SM-6 for it’s limited mk41 load outs.

The Aussies are still interested in VLS LRASM. Lockheed might set up a factory there with Thales Australia

 

[NMaude]

Pretty sure that is correct, though I don’t think the TLAM booster gets the weapon as high up and so would involve a range reduction anyway

The Mk-135 booster IIRC burns for 12s producing 6,000Lb of thrust vs. the Mk-114 burning for 5s with 11,000Lb of thrust.

 

[TomcatViP]

LRASM as fitted under the wing of a P-8:

First View of LRASM Missile Aboard a US Navy P-8A Poseidon - Naval News

Naval News obtained from the US Navy the first images showing the LRASM (Long Range Anti-Ship Missile) fitted on a P-8A Poseidon Maritime Patrol Aircraft (MPA).

www.navalnews.com

 

[CIC-TAO]

Lockheed Martin's LRASM business development lead:
The company is currently on pace to produce more than 500 missiles per year between the LRASM and JASSM systems.
The company anticipates producing a combined 1,000 or more of the two missiles on an annual basis before the end of the expected four-year, multiyear contract.

 

[FighterJock]

That is excellent news for the US Navy, I cannot wait to see the RAF P-8s getting fitted out with them as well.

 

[Josh_TN]

Lockheed Martin's LRASM business development lead:
The company is currently on pace to produce more than 500 missiles per year between the LRASM and JASSM systems.
The company anticipates producing a combined 1,000 or more of the two missiles on an annual basis before the end of the expected four-year, multiyear contract.

My concern is that while the AGM-158 line is being expanded (I had heard to 850/year from 550/year), the vast majority of the missiles are still AGM-158Bs with very little LRASMs. I think there are only 3-400 LRASMs on order or delivered total, I think some of that buy is Australia. That will be somewhat addressed by purchasing newer B models that from what I understand have a weapon datalink to allow for target updates during flight, but it still seems like LRASM purchases are very inadequate.

 

[CIC-TAO]

Lockheed Martin's LRASM business development lead:
The company is currently on pace to produce more than 500 missiles per year between the LRASM and JASSM systems.
The company anticipates producing a combined 1,000 or more of the two missiles on an annual basis before the end of the expected four-year, multiyear contract.

My concern is that while the AGM-158 line is being expanded (I had heard to 850/year from 550/year), the vast majority of the missiles are still AGM-158Bs with very little LRASMs. I think there are only 3-400 LRASMs on order or delivered total, I think some of that buy is Australia. That will be somewhat addressed by purchasing newer B models that from what I understand have a weapon datalink to allow for target updates during flight, but it still seems like LRASM purchases are very inadequate.

Steve Trimble say "Navy plans to buy a total of 833 AGM-158Cs".

 

[Josh_TN]

I think there are about a hundred in the current budget request, so it seems likely they will spend the rest of the decade getting to that number. But that would be a decent amount. Do you have a link to the article/quote?

 

[Jimmo952]

Lockheed Martin's LRASM business development lead:
The company is currently on pace to produce more than 500 missiles per year between the LRASM and JASSM systems.
The company anticipates producing a combined 1,000 or more of the two missiles on an annual basis before the end of the expected four-year, multiyear contract.

My concern is that while the AGM-158 line is being expanded (I had heard to 850/year from 550/year), the vast majority of the missiles are still AGM-158Bs with very little LRASMs. I think there are only 3-400 LRASMs on order or delivered total, I think some of that buy is Australia. That will be somewhat addressed by purchasing newer B models that from what I understand have a weapon datalink to allow for target updates during flight, but it still seems like LRASM purchases are very inadequate.

Steve Trimble say "Navy plans to buy a total of 833 AGM-158Cs".

How many does the Airforce plan to buy? I believe they are also looking at > 800 missiles.

Then there is also the Navy and Marines purchase of NSM. The SM6 and Tomahawk anti-ship modes. The Airforce's new Quicksink munition.

Even the Army is planning an anti-ship seeker for it's Prsm family of missiles.

The US Military is clearly trying to rectify decades of neglecting the anti-ship mission.

The Navy is hoping for the HALO to supplement the Lrasm with a similar production run.

When I look at the totality of the US Military's anti-ship efforts, it's a pretty remarkable transformation.