DARPA Long Range Anti-ship Missile (LRASM)

zjz

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Jun 1, 2008
Messages
41
Reaction score
41
main-qimg-327eb6faa534844790cf8552e8c3bb79-c.jpg
 

TomS

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
5,628
Reaction score
3,772

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

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2010
Messages
1,634
Reaction score
811

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

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 4, 2019
Messages
1,554
Reaction score
1,125
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

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
15,328
Reaction score
4,623
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.
 

Similar threads

Top