DARPA Long Range Anti-ship Missile (LRASM)

FighterJock said:
I did not know that the LRASM used the Harpoon warhead? That is news to me, I wonder what made them go down that route? Money?
Click to expand...

Hmmmm. The original LRASM used the JASSM warhead.

Variants were proposed that sacrificed warhead size for range, but this is the first I've heard the Harpoon warhead actually being used.
 
FighterJock said:
I did not know that the LRASM used the Harpoon warhead? That is news to me, I wonder what made them go down that route? Money?
Click to expand...
My guess would be range. The extra electronics weigh more, so they reduced warhead size to 500lb (unless they went with the 800lb warhead from the SLAM-ER) to claw back the range. The JASSM warhead weighed 1000lb but only contained 240lbs of AFX-757.
 
Jimmo952 said:
Hmmmm. The original LRASM used the JASSM warhead.

Variants were proposed that sacrificed warhead size for range, but this is the first I've heard the Harpoon warhead actually being used.
Click to expand...

It's speculation by Josh_TN.
 
In regards to the Mk-114 rocket-motor for launching the LRASM from the Mk-41 VLS does anyone know its' length and weight? The only figures I know are its' diameter (14.1"), Thrust (11,000Lb) and burn time (5s).
 
NMaude said:
In regards to the Mk-114 rocket-motor for launching the LRASM from the Mk-41 VLS does anyone know its' length and weight? The only figures I know are its' diameter (14.1"), Thrust (11,000Lb) and burn time (5s).
Click to expand...

I do not know the figures you are looking for, but I am confident the USN will never adopt LRASM as a surface launched weapon. So it probably is not super relevant.
 
Josh_TN said:
I do not know the figures you are looking for, but I am confident the USN will never adopt LRASM as a surface launched weapon. So it probably is not super relevant.
Click to expand...
What was the reason for that anyway? Because they had Tomahawk already?
 
Forest Green said:
What was the reason for that anyway? Because they had Tomahawk already?
Click to expand...

That and the fact JASSM/LRASM seem to operate from medium altitude, so boosting from the surface and using the turbofan to climb will burn through range of an already shorter ranged missile. SM-6 can already out range AGM-158C-1 from a surface launch. LRASM does not fill a capability niche not already filled by other types.
 
NMaude said:
In regards to the Mk-114 rocket-motor for launching the LRASM from the Mk-41 VLS does anyone know its' length and weight? The only figures I know are its' diameter (14.1"), Thrust (11,000Lb) and burn time (5s).
Click to expand...
Given thrust and burn time, I would expect it to be similar in length/weight to the booster of the Harpoon.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Given thrust and burn time, I would expect it to be similar in length/weight to the booster of the Harpoon.
Click to expand...

A quick look at the Mk-114 shows that it's about twice the length of the Harpoon's launch booster and is about two-thirds the length of a Mk-46 torpedo, now that I think about it after seeing some images I wouldn't be surprised at all if the Mk-114 is the same length as the RUR-5 ASROC's Mk-37 launch booster.
 
Last edited:
NMaude said:
A click look at the Mk-114 shows that it's about twice the length of the Harpoon's launch booster and is about two-thirds the length of a Mk-46 torpedo, now that I think about it after seeing some images I wouldn't be surprised at all if the Mk-114 is the same length as the RUR-5 ASROC's Mk-37 launch booster.
Click to expand...
Should be pretty close, the Mk46 torpedo from ASROC is 2.59m and the Mk54 torpedo is 2.72m. Any interstage is going to be about the same length due to the very similar shapes of the back ends of the torpedoes.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Any interstage is going to be about the same length due to the very similar shapes of the back ends of the torpedoes.
Click to expand...

Don't forget that attached to the torpedo's back end is the Mk-28 torpedo stabiliser (A retarder parachute) and sandwiched between that and the Mk-114 booster is the INS and Mk 210 Mod 0 Digital Autopilot Control subsystem.
 
It's very possible, even probable, the Navy is looking to get more range out of the LRASM. That's been hinted at for some time now.

Still, the obvious errors in the article make it hard to have much confidence in what's being reported.
 
There are literally budget items that link the AGM-158C-3 with name LRASM-ER. We already knew this via oth posts in this thread. This article mashes together so many mistakes such that I would instead refer back to previous, higher quality articles than spend any time on it.

And yes, the supersonic reference was the first red flag, but not the only inaccuracy, and quite a road flare of inaccuracy at that.
 
Scott Kenny said:
That looks like it could replace the Harpoon canisters...
Click to expand...

It was offered at one stage for the OTH missile requirement that NSM is now filling.

"Dimensions and configuration specifics are not publicly releasable at this time, but in general, we are comparable to the Harpoon launcher in space, weight, power
Click to expand...

armyrecognition.com

Exclusive: First Image of the Lockheed Martin LRASM Top Side Launcher

Exclusive: First Image of the Lockheed Martin LRASM Top Side Launcher
armyrecognition.com armyrecognition.com

1718491001449.png

NMaude said:
It looks like it uses the Mk-114 launch booster from the RUM-139 VLA.
Click to expand...

It does. And LM acknowledges that it's kinda overkill for the purpose, but they make the booster themselves, so they're sticking with it unless someone funds a shorter one. Australia made some noises in that direction, because the VLA booster plus LRASM missile is too long for Tactical Mk 41. But nothing recent, I don't think.

1718491052714.png
 
Having a command and control drone detonate aloft after guiding dumber munitions inbound would eliminate any back-engineering.
 
Forest Green said:
According to wiki, Flt 1&2 have Harpoon launchers, 2A and 3 gain and extra 6 VLS cells and 2 MH-60Rs instead.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. But the non 1/2 build list is pretty short, and not all of them are being retained. I believe they are getting 5year SLEP on a case by case basis or something like that. The USN is dumping the Ticos as fast as Congress will allow.
 
Apparently DDG-51 has been extended to 40 years (2031) and other Flt 1/II ships will probably be extended barring any notable damage or issues (Cole, for example). the IIAs and IIIs are already certified for 40 years.
 
Defense Updates has put out a video about the possible addition of the NSM to the Arleigh Burke class warships:


It seems the U.S. Navy is looking to augment the anti-ship capabilities of the Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer.
Click to expand...
During their arrival to Honolulu for Exercise Rim of the Pacific (RIMPAC) 2024, the Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer USS Fitzgerald (DDG-62) was photographed with Naval Strike Missile (NSM) box launchers.
Click to expand...
This is an interesting development.In this video,
Click to expand...
Defense Updates analyzes why the probable addition of Naval Strike Missile on Arleigh Burke warships makes sense?
Click to expand...
#defenseupdates #NavalStrikeMissile #usnavy
Click to expand...
Chapters:
00:11 INTRODUCTION
01:33 ANTI SHIP CAPABILITIES IN ARLEIGH BURKE WARSHIPS
04:49 NSM
07:37 ANALYSIS
Click to expand...
 
NMaude said:
Defense Updates has put out a video about the possible addition of the NSM to the Arleigh Burke class warships:

Click to expand...

It definitely appears that the NSM launcher rack is bolt-compatible with Harpoon (seen in how quickly the RN was able to do the swap on the T23s). So the idea of swapping out the increasingly obsolete Harpoon makes sense.

But remember that the only Burkes with Harpoon are Flight I and II. That's 28 ships.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom