Long Range Precision Fires

jsport

what do you know about surfing Major? you're from-
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
4,318
Reaction score
1,915
The question being, one only has to jam in one's immediate vicinity so ELINT geo from any distance may be a problem
Eyeah no.

Emissions control is thing for a reason.

The radio waves will travel well several drozen kilometers with hundreds not being unheard if unless actively block by something. Like a mountain.

And this was know during WW1 and detection gear just got more sensitive as time went on.

Thats before it got put on planes.

For finding modern units, its often the lower power comm gear giving it away.

Any jamming powerful enough to screw up GPS signals will be detected a long way away. And from there you just need simple triangulation with two or more sensors, which the US Military have alot off.
The literature says GPS can be jammed w/ as low as 27db or .5watts. Google says Generally, 0.5 watt (o. 5W) channels cover less than a half mile.
As stated, an engineer he saw a toaster jam a GPS signal.

Jammers will likely be protected by Low level tactical IADS which Eastern Armies have plenty of.

Eastern Armies can afford large disposable jammers to induce shots from US assets which reveals those assets
Using a 1 million dollar missile to take out, at max, a 250k MLRS or Excal round is a bad bargain. And guns are way too easy to become over saturated by mass fires of $25k PGK shells.

As for for inducing shots same can be said of Eastern Armies assets. As soon as they shot at an US Army asset another will detect and shot at it. Or the Air Force bombs it with the active homing with home on jam opition GBU53 from 50 kilometers out.
A large conflict will have limited Excal or bombs as large a GBU-53 therefore it is a who will make the best use of limited precision for max effect.
 

Firefinder

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Oct 6, 2019
Messages
283
Reaction score
430
The question being, one only has to jam in one's immediate vicinity so ELINT geo from any distance may be a problem
Eyeah no.

Emissions control is thing for a reason.

The radio waves will travel well several drozen kilometers with hundreds not being unheard if unless actively block by something. Like a mountain.

And this was know during WW1 and detection gear just got more sensitive as time went on.

Thats before it got put on planes.

For finding modern units, its often the lower power comm gear giving it away.

Any jamming powerful enough to screw up GPS signals will be detected a long way away. And from there you just need simple triangulation with two or more sensors, which the US Military have alot off.
The literature says GPS can be jammed w/ as low as 27db or .5watts. Google says Generally, 0.5 watt (o. 5W) channels cover less than a half mile.
As stated, an engineer he saw a toaster jam a GPS signal.

Jammers will likely be protected by Low level tactical IADS which Eastern Armies have plenty of.

Eastern Armies can afford large disposable jammers to induce shots from US assets which reveals those assets
Using a 1 million dollar missile to take out, at max, a 250k MLRS or Excal round is a bad bargain. And guns are way too easy to become over saturated by mass fires of $25k PGK shells.

As for for inducing shots same can be said of Eastern Armies assets. As soon as they shot at an US Army asset another will detect and shot at it. Or the Air Force bombs it with the active homing with home on jam opition GBU53 from 50 kilometers out.
A large conflict will have limited Excal or bombs as large a GBU-53 therefore it is a who will make the best use of limited precision for max effect.
Considering we actaully have a fairly stockpile of Excal rounds and the GBU53 is a 250 pound gliding bomb, both of which are design to be spam built.

Which they are as seen by the bought amounts listed in this thread.

With the Army also ordering large batchs of PGKs on the regular.

The US can afford to be...

Wasteful of its precision guided munitions.
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
2,828
Reaction score
1,243
In the larger scheme of things, building huge stockpiles of PGM's is not that expensive anymore relative to some of the other investments we make. You can go back to buying 7k-8K SDB-I's a year and it will still cost the equivalent of something like 2-3 F-35's a year. Doubling, or even tripling the objective GBU-53 inventory isn't going to create that large of a dent in the AF's procurement accounts either. Likewise, adding another 15-20 K M982s say over 6-8 years is going to cost roughly $300-350 MM procurement spend a year. That's a rounding error for Congress. Between these, you have a fairly robust sized inventory that can all be used in combination with other systems to take out the threats and spectrum denial capability and then open up the use of cheaper less resistant to jamming PG options. That said, I believe the PGK-S2M also introduces M-code on the PGK kits so those too may already be available to buy.
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
2,828
Reaction score
1,243
It is very easy to actually look up the program and inventory costs for these PGMs. Instead of talking non specifics, how about pick 2-3 weapons, and get us what it would cost to say double their inventory over 6-8 years? Let's see if that is going to break a bank across 2 AF (SDB-1, and SDB-2) and a couple of US Army (let's pick excal and PGK) inventories.

We actually have historic information. The AF has in prior years purchased > 7,000 SDB's a year. It can very easily go back to those levels if it wanted. The difference from current procurement rates to that isn't very much in terms of the overall AF procurement budget. The argument that even larger than current stockpiles are unaffordable does not really stand up to scrutiny. Feel free to expand that to more expensive weapons. Army expects to pay 1 Million per PrSm on average. Planned inventory is 3900 missiles. That's a 4-5 Billion 10-15 year acquisition program. A 3x increase in it gets them to about a billion a year in procurement. Increasing PGM stockpiles is actually way more affordable than fielding, operating, or recapitalizing platforms so if a decision is made to adjust the stockpile up compared to where they think they need to be to be comfortable, that can very easily be done in 1/2 or even less the time it takes to field a platform these days.
 

jsport

what do you know about surfing Major? you're from-
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
4,318
Reaction score
1,915
It is very easy to actually look up the program and inventory costs for these PGMs. Instead of talking non specifics, how about pick 2-3 weapons, and get us what it would cost to say double their inventory over 6-8 years? Let's see if that is going to break a bank across 2 AF (SDB-1, and SDB-2) and a couple of US Army (let's pick excal and PGK) inventories.

We actually have historic information. The AF has in prior years purchased > 7,000 SDB's a year. It can very easily go back to those levels if it wanted. The difference from current procurement rates to that isn't very much in terms of the overall AF procurement budget. The argument that even larger than current stockpiles are unaffordable does not really stand up to scrutiny.
GPS guidance is cheap but increasing stand-off ie often converting to propelled system is not. Keeping personal out of harms way even ground forces is not going down in price but up. Defense budgets are already truncated and the US deterent drastically reduced as pointed out by RUSI analyst interviewed on Russian Mil Strategy for Mitchel Instit. (Army Modernization Thread) A Korean conflict would rapidly deplete as Iraq Afghan did and then no readiness for a MRC.
Feel free to expand that to more expensive weapons. Army expects to pay 1 Million per PrSm on average. Planned inventory is 3900 missiles. That's a 4-5 Billion 10-15 year acquisition program.
In an MRC, 3900 msles can be expended quickly, and mill a rd is not a survivable Army force structure design. The DEVCOm Cdr has stated Joint Force/Army will be "overwhelmed" by tgts. Folks have known the PAC ranges and the over 10k tgts and growing for 10yrs. A 2 MRC is out of the question and overall def spending is down..
A 3x increase in it gets them to about a billion a year in procurement. Increasing PGM stockpiles is actually way more affordable than fielding, operating, or recapitalizing platforms so if a decision is made to adjust the stockpile up compared to where they think they need to be to be comfortable, that can very easily be done in 1/2 or even less the time it takes to field a platform these days.
The arguement for stealth has always been getting closer before detection and wpns release, thus the platform's stealth matters. Converting every munition to cruise missile because all of your old platforms is expensive.
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
2,828
Reaction score
1,243
Selective cherry picking as usual as if the PrSM inventory is the only PGM inventory with the services. Not once did I mention that we buy cruise missiles at the expense of X Y or Z. Let's see some math of what it would take to triple the inventory of select PGMs (land, and air launched) over the next decade and then we can discuss whether it is unaffordable as you claim.

Munition cost and ROI depends on the target, its direct and opportunity cost to the opponent and the cost of denying that to the enemy by another means. Again, let's see some cost and some actual analysis in terms of what it would cost to dramatically increase select weapon inventories just like A) we've done in the past, and B ) are doing with some systems even presently.
 

jsport

what do you know about surfing Major? you're from-
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
4,318
Reaction score
1,915
Selective cherry picking as usual as if the PrSM inventory is the only PGM inventory with the services.
Clearly some personal cherry picking itself.
Not once did I mention that we buy cruise missiles at the expense of X Y or Z. Let's see some math of what it would take to triple the inventory of select PGMs (land, and air launched) over the next decade and then we can discuss whether it is unaffordable as you claim.
Numbers are of course classified and irrelevant to the limits of the US to engage and prevail in 2 MRCs..Obviously, no homework..some sort personal spin going on.
Munition cost and ROI depends on the target, its direct and opportunity cost to the opponent and the cost of denying that to the enemy by another means.
In the case the cost quite largely is what it takes to get there and where one survives the trip and return. Very dense IADS and Asia long ranges to be faced. Someone refuses to do their homework and might be in their own private Idaho.
Again, let's see some cost and some actual analysis in terms of what it would cost to dramatically increase select weapon inventories just like A) we've done in the past, and B ) are doing with some systems even presently.
Get me the base data and M&S and then we'll talk what the GOs already know. We are beyond behind.. Asking for analysis on this forum is again a personal attack, and a attack the truth. Someone trying to justify their own very faulty assumptions.
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
2,828
Reaction score
1,243
As expected, you provide no real numbers behind your argument to suggest that building PGM inventory is unaffordable. The point is to get to a point where you have a good and robust capability for the various contingencies and O plans. With reasonable risk. The same is true for any other alternate investment track. Show us how 2-3x increase in some vital Army, and AF/Navy munition program buy rates is unaffordable. I would argue that it really isn't as long as they chose their weapon types strategically and increase buy rates.
 
Last edited:

Josh_TN

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 4, 2019
Messages
1,558
Reaction score
1,127
GPS MLRS is more in the range of $120,000 per round, maybe more for the long range version. ERCA howitzer rounds with GPS fuses are ~$10,000. At that point engaging an individual 4x4 becomes cost effective. I have a hard time believing that the Russians can keep up with the volume and variety of munitions the US army is planning to deploy under LRPF. On the USAF side, it looks like the focus is on ever cheaper and long ranged munitions as well. One could argue that SDB-I/II are already too inexpensive to cost effectively engage with SAMs outside (maybe) point defense systems like Pantsir. Launching large numbers of these from stealth aircraft, soon to include B-21s, seems like a challenging AD problem to say the least.
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
2,828
Reaction score
1,243
GPS MLRS is more in the range of $120,000 per round, maybe more for the long range version. ERCA howitzer rounds with GPS fuses are ~$10,000. At that point engaging an individual 4x4 becomes cost effective. I have a hard time believing that the Russians can keep up with the volume and variety of munitions the US army is planning to deploy under LRPF. On the USAF side, it looks like the focus is on ever cheaper and long ranged munitions as well. One could argue that SDB-I/II are already too inexpensive to cost effectively engage with SAMs outside (maybe) point defense systems like Pantsir. Launching large numbers of these from stealth aircraft, soon to include B-21s, seems like a challenging AD problem to say the least.

Absolutely. Same with some of the longer ranged and more expensive options. A SAM battery costs a lot these days with large P./AESA radars alone costing double digit millions. A SAM launcher with 4 long range missiles can easily cost upward of $6-8 Million. A PrSM, or AARGM-ER costs between $1 and $1.5 Million. You can use a lot of these against an AD battery. That's a cost-effective solution to that problem and building 2-3 times the current buy rates is very affordable using simple math and size of the procurement budget. There are several programs where we can dramatically increase production rates w/o a need to have large increases defense spending. For example, adding an additional 4K PrSMs (just an example) over the 3900 or so anticipated inventory will cost the Army roughly $500 MM a year if that ramp happens over a decade so its entirely doable if they prioritize this strategy.
 

Josh_TN

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 4, 2019
Messages
1,558
Reaction score
1,127
I agree, but my other point was that even outside the larger missile programs, the US Army (and also USAF) is building up a capability of shorter ranged but far less expensive PGMs. The ERCA with RAP can throw a guided round out to ~70km as can MLRS with a GPS unitary round. GMLRS-ER pushes that range out to 120 km. This is way before we get to million dollar missiles, which as you note is completely affordable: the US can easily afford to spend ten million dollars engaging a battery that has a total value of 100 million.
 

jsport

what do you know about surfing Major? you're from-
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
4,318
Reaction score
1,915
As expected, you provide no real numbers behind your argument to suggest that building PGM inventory is unaffordable. The point is to get to a point where you have a good and robust capability for the various contingencies and O plans. With reasonable risk. The same is true for any other alternate investment track. Show us how 2-3x increase in some vital Army, and AF/Navy munition program buy rates is unaffordable. I would argue that it really isn't as long as they chose their weapon types strategically and increase buy rates.
Only five sided funny farm folks have such numbers for MRCs etc.

"As expected, you provide no real numbers behind your argument to suggest that building PGM inventory is unaffordable." this once again this a is personal attack as being outside one would have no means to attain such numbers.

Although M&S shows, according to retired GOs on the Mitchel interviews, the US is behind signifcantly. (once again no homework done to even so as to know how bad the US stacks up)
The US is so far behind catching up would take significant reform. Retired GOs can speak out, funny farm folks cant.

Current funny farm SETAs should commit ritual sepiku in the funny farm center court yard for their contiual BS.
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
2,828
Reaction score
1,243
Only five sided funny farm folks have such numbers for MRCs etc.

I'm not asking for actual specific numbers based on operational plans but a general sense of what it would take to A) select a few PGM programs that offer a good ROI, and impose cost on either China or Russia, B ) Have active production line, C ) Need to be increased by anywhere from 2 to 5 x the current buy rate to reach an objective inventory by the time their production ends.
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
2,828
Reaction score
1,243
I agree, but my other point was that even outside the larger missile programs, the US Army (and also USAF) is building up a capability of shorter ranged but far less expensive PGMs. The ERCA with RAP can throw a guided round out to ~70km as can MLRS with a GPS unitary round. GMLRS-ER pushes that range out to 120 km. This is way before we get to million dollar missiles, which as you note is completely affordable: the US can easily afford to spend ten million dollars engaging a battery that has a total value of 100 million.

Yes absolutely. But apparently all that is classified and not sharable.
 

jsport

what do you know about surfing Major? you're from-
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
4,318
Reaction score
1,915
Only five sided funny farm folks have such numbers for MRCs etc.

I'm not asking for actual specific numbers based on operational plans but a general sense of what it would take to A) select a few PGM programs that offer a good ROI, and impose cost on either China or Russia, B ) Have active production line, C ) Need to be increased by anywhere from 2 to 5 x the current buy rate to reach an objective inventory by the time their production ends.
Answered this already so again. The general answer is more stealth (expensive) lesser need for standoff (expensive propulsion, and search) {GPS and even multi-sensor is cheap not so much search}.

Either way it is expensive, especially when dealing w/ the vastness of area and distances Asia and the Pac Ocean present, and the likely attrition to sophisticated IADS.

Search/loiter and hypersonic (hopefully air delivered) like GA's "Vintage Racer" is likely not cheap and will need be used until IADS are sufficiently supressed until cheaper GPS guided but still standoff can be used.
 
Last edited:

Josh_TN

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 4, 2019
Messages
1,558
Reaction score
1,127
In the European theater, the F-35 fly away costs are not particularly greater than any 4+/4.5 generation fighter. In fact pretty much everyone is buying it who can. Between Norway, Poland, and Finland, the Russians will have ~150 fifth generation fighters on their border by the time they build half as many of their own.

The Pacific is admittedly a very different situation, and the PRC can much more afford to match US expenditures and buy deeper magazines for the systems it does buy compared to Russia. But in that case much more expensive weapons can be justified to sink ships worth hundreds of millions to billions of dollars. 150 x 3-4 million dollars would be an expensive AGM-158C buy, but if you can fire them all at once from a half dozen B-1s and sink a half dozen major surface combatants, perfectly justifiable and sustainable. I believe the USAF currently only has 400 on order, but it wouldn't take much effort or funds to up that number - simply sacrifice other -158 versions in the short term and you don't even need to ramp production. A dozen 30-40 million dollar CPSs is a huge price tag for a single salvo, but if nothing can intercept them and they slag an aircraft carrier, the cost of the embarked aircraft alone justifies the expense.
 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
15,340
Reaction score
4,632
In the European theater, the F-35 fly away costs are not particularly greater than any 4+/4.5 generation fighter. In fact pretty much everyone is buying it who can. Between Norway, Poland, and Finland, the Russians will have ~150 fifth generation fighters on their border by the time they build half as many of their own.
Russia has many missiles that could be used to knock out the airbases. Those 150 fighters may as well not exist if they don't have runways to operate off of.
 

Josh_TN

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 4, 2019
Messages
1,558
Reaction score
1,127
In the European theater, the F-35 fly away costs are not particularly greater than any 4+/4.5 generation fighter. In fact pretty much everyone is buying it who can. Between Norway, Poland, and Finland, the Russians will have ~150 fifth generation fighters on their border by the time they build half as many of their own.
Russia has many missiles that could be used to knock out the airbases. Those 150 fighters may as well not exist if they don't have runways to operate off of.

No doubt, but it should suck up a lot of Iskander density to do so.
 

jsport

what do you know about surfing Major? you're from-
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
4,318
Reaction score
1,915
A dozen 30-40 million dollar CPSs is a huge price tag for a single salvo, but if nothing can intercept them and they slag an aircraft carrier, the cost of the embarked aircraft alone justifies the expense.
What if the new S-550 is designed to shoot down CPS et al non air delivered Hypers?
 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
15,340
Reaction score
4,632
In the European theater, the F-35 fly away costs are not particularly greater than any 4+/4.5 generation fighter. In fact pretty much everyone is buying it who can. Between Norway, Poland, and Finland, the Russians will have ~150 fifth generation fighters on their border by the time they build half as many of their own.
Russia has many missiles that could be used to knock out the airbases. Those 150 fighters may as well not exist if they don't have runways to operate off of.

No doubt, but it should suck up a lot of Iskander density to do so.
A couple Iskander to knock them down and cheap cruise missiles to keep them down.
 

Josh_TN

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 4, 2019
Messages
1,558
Reaction score
1,127
A dozen 30-40 million dollar CPSs is a huge price tag for a single salvo, but if nothing can intercept them and they slag an aircraft carrier, the cost of the embarked aircraft alone justifies the expense.
What if the new S-550 is designed to shoot down CPS et al non air delivered Hypers?

Then it is probably equally as expensive, at least when fired two for one to ensure a hit. Does China have plans to buy S-550?

Though IMO the big anti access coup for the US in the Pacific will be scramjets. If the USAF can deploy twenty long ranged hypersonics per B-52 for prices close to a conventional cruise missile, I think they've cornered the market. The conclusion of the HAWC tests and start of HACM can't come soon enough.
 

jsport

what do you know about surfing Major? you're from-
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
4,318
Reaction score
1,915
pla/n plans 550. see related 500 thread
 

Gorrilhas

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Sep 22, 2021
Messages
15
Reaction score
7
In the European theater, the F-35 fly away costs are not particularly greater than any 4+/4.5 generation fighter. In fact pretty much everyone is buying it who can. Between Norway, Poland, and Finland, the Russians will have ~150 fifth generation fighters on their border by the time they build half as many of their own.

The Pacific is admittedly a very different situation, and the PRC can much more afford to match US expenditures and buy deeper magazines for the systems it does buy compared to Russia. But in that case much more expensive weapons can be justified to sink ships worth hundreds of millions to billions of dollars. 150 x 3-4 million dollars would be an expensive AGM-158C buy, but if you can fire them all at once from a half dozen B-1s and sink a half dozen major surface combatants, perfectly justifiable and sustainable. I believe the USAF currently only has 400 on order, but it wouldn't take much effort or funds to up that number - simply sacrifice other -158 versions in the short term and you don't even need to ramp production. A dozen 30-40 million dollar CPSs is a huge price tag for a single salvo, but if nothing can intercept them and they slag an aircraft carrier, the cost of the embarked aircraft alone justifies the expense.
The missile and ammunition inventory gets to be much more complex than that.

As an example, the Tomahawk (Block III and Block IV) number 4,000 units in the US Navy. This number will drop because several differential missiles are being introduced, even with the upgrade of older missiles (Tomahawk Block IV to Block V version) and the introduction of Anti-ship Tomahawk (Tomahawk Block V), the number will drop because a total of 500-1000 Tomahawk Block III missiles will not be upgraded to a more modern version of the Tomahawk Block V and will be withdrawn from service.

Other inventory data which I will also include nuclear missiles:

400 Minutemans III with 800 W78 and W87 ballistic nuclear warheads
240 Trident II missiles with 1600 W76 and W88 ballistic warheads
540 AGM-86B nuclear cruise missiles
About 1500 B-61 and B-83 nuclear bombs
4,000 Tomahawks launched by ships and submarines
3,000 air-launched cruise missiles (target is 10,000 by 2026)
250,000 kits for JDAM bombs
250,000 kits for Paveway pumps.
-120 anti-ship LRASM

Missiles that can be acquired in the medium term (2025).
Are they:

50 CPS
200 LRASM
450 Tomahawks Block V MST
190 NSM
700 SM-6
Total of 1590 missiles with anti-ship capability.

If added to about 300 Harpoons and about 1000 to 1500 SLAM-ER, you get the amount between 2590 to 3090 AShM.

Added to the approximately 1,500 Mk-48 torpedoes, there are between 4,000 and 4,500 anti-ship guns.

And even with long-range anti-ship capability, it has the following missiles available to the Americans:

JSOW C-1
storm breaker
HARM
AARGM

The following missiles with anti-ship capabilities are still under development:

AARGM-ER - 2023
SM -6 Block IB - 2023/24
PrSM Spiral One - 2025
 

Bhurki

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Jul 16, 2020
Messages
336
Reaction score
344
News regarding SLRC.
I thought they had shelved this project.
FY24 , 77 round test, 1180 mile nominal range.
(Everything else behind paywall)

 

Josh_TN

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 4, 2019
Messages
1,558
Reaction score
1,127
News regarding SLRC.
I thought they had shelved this project.
FY24 , 77 round test, 1180 mile nominal range.
(Everything else behind paywall)

Thanks, I had also thought that was shelved.
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
2,828
Reaction score
1,243
Missiles that can be acquired in the medium term (2025).
Are they:

50 CPS
200 LRASM
450 Tomahawks Block V MST

LRASM and some others are an interesting test case because they are happening in parallel to production line capacity increase (CAPEX) and additional orders for the parent JASSM missile (USN now buying it starting FY-22). That said, about 250 or so missiles would have been on order or delivered through FY-22, and we could expect a steady program of about 60-70 orders a year from FY-23. There are limits to how much they can ramp up w/o impacting JASSM inventory plans but it is possible in the long term to reach closer to 100 orders/deliveries a year. NSM likewise will probably pick up once they have more platforms. Additional Anti ship capability can be introduced relatively quickly via buying JSM's for the F-35 since Raytheon has the agreements in place to have that assembled in the same facility that is doing the NSM. Additionally, we don't know what the Army's long term plan is with the MRC but that could field a sizable anti-ship capability as well in addition to the multi-domain prSM.
 

Gorrilhas

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Sep 22, 2021
Messages
15
Reaction score
7
Missiles that can be acquired in the medium term (2025).
Are they:

50 CPS
200 LRASM
450 Tomahawks Block V MST

LRASM and some others are an interesting test case because they are happening in parallel to production line capacity increase (CAPEX) and additional orders for the parent JASSM missile (USN now buying it starting FY-22). That said, about 250 or so missiles would have been on order or delivered through FY-22, and we could expect a steady program of about 60-70 orders a year from FY-23. There are limits to how much they can ramp up w/o impacting JASSM inventory plans but it is possible in the long term to reach closer to 100 orders/deliveries a year. NSM likewise will probably pick up once they have more platforms. Additional Anti ship capability can be introduced relatively quickly via buying JSM's for the F-35 since Raytheon has the agreements in place to have that assembled in the same facility that is doing the NSM. Additionally, we don't know what the Army's long term plan is with the MRC but that could field a sizable anti-ship capability as well in addition to the multi-domain prSM.
The LRASM production line has the benefit of being manufactured in the same place as the JASSM missiles, in terms of expanding the production of the LRASM missiles it is something that can be accomplished much more quickly and easily than the other production lines.

The following image is the budget for LRASM acquisitions:

lrasm.JPG

(Note the RDT&E spend of $127.8 million being applied to LRASM 1.1, LRASM had issues with its passive seeker and the issue was recently resolved and includes incremental missile improvements that were not implemented in the first version and are funding telemetry kits)

The LRASM is a missile that is fully capable of increasing production, but honestly I do not see great demands for this missile in the future, its price is a limiting factor, the price today already exceeds US$3.3 million per unit, production must stabilize at somewhere between 50 and 60 units per year.

The image below is the procurement budget for the JASSM missile:

JASSM.JPG

If you notice you will see that the production of JASSM increased even due to the increase of more than 280% of the LRASM from one year to another and in the following year, it kept the same production of the LRASM increasing the production of the JASSM. I do not believe based on this analysis that an increase in LRASM production by 50% would produce 72 LRASM missiles and would produce restrictive results for JASSM production and stockpiling.
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
2,828
Reaction score
1,243
The LRASM production line has the benefit of being manufactured in the same place as the JASSM missiles, in terms of expanding the production of the LRASM missiles it is something that can be accomplished much more quickly and easily than the other production lines.

It is already happening however do note that the facility expansion is also supporting a rather large expected increase in JASSM quantities so the supply of LRASM slots for each production lot will continue to depend upon USAF and Navy plans and annual JASSM buy rates going forward. FY-23 should include 70-75 LRASM's. Roughly 45-48 for the Navy, and 25-29 for the USAF. With more potential platforms, this could stabilize to around 100* or so per year by 2024-2025 at the upper end which is probably what's needed given that it for now remains an interim capability. As far as cost is concerned, they should probably be buying a mix of LRASM's, and JSM's in the long term with the latter as the lower cost option.

*At one point they were aiming for annual buys in the 90-100 range. Depending on how the PDI goes, and what powers the INDO-PACOM commander has with Congress, they could get back to that number in the near-mid term.
 
Last edited:

Gorrilhas

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Sep 22, 2021
Messages
15
Reaction score
7
News regarding SLRC.
I thought they had shelved this project.
FY24 , 77 round test, 1180 mile nominal range.
(Everything else behind paywall)

It was suspended, the development program was not cancelled.
 

jsport

what do you know about surfing Major? you're from-
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
4,318
Reaction score
1,915

Gorrilhas

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Sep 22, 2021
Messages
15
Reaction score
7
The LRASM production line has the benefit of being manufactured in the same place as the JASSM missiles, in terms of expanding the production of the LRASM missiles it is something that can be accomplished much more quickly and easily than the other production lines.

It is already happening however do note that the facility expansion is also supporting a rather large expected increase in JASSM quantities so the supply of LRASM slots for each production lot will continue to depend upon USAF and Navy plans and annual JASSM buy rates going forward. FY-23 should include 70-75 LRASM's. Roughly 45-48 for the Navy, and 25-29 for the USAF. With more potential platforms, this could stabilize to around 100* or so per year by 2024-2025 at the upper end which is probably what's needed given that it for now remains an interim capability. As far as cost is concerned, they should probably be buying a mix of LRASM's, and JSM's in the long term with the latter as the lower cost option.

*At one point they were aiming for annual buys in the 90-100 range. Depending on how the PDI goes, and what powers the INDO-PACOM commander has with Congress, they could get back to that number in the near-mid term.
The LRASM is a missile in the American stockpile of provisional capability, it was implemented by OASuW Increment 1 still in 2008 under the effect of urgency, at the same time the USN only had the Harpoon as a dedicated long-range anti-ship missile, the requirements have changed since then.

It is worth remembering that the budget reduction for the OASuW Increment 2 program, which delayed the program development schedule, forced the US Navy to finance the LRASM update (LRASM 1.1) to cover the interval between the establishment of the OASuW Increment 1 and the OASuW Increment 2.


Honestly, I don't expect LRASM production to reach the peak of 100 units per year because I don't see it as necessary, production stabilized between 70 units is something I consider ideal, so until the establishment of OASuW Increment 2 there is no need none of producing hundreds of LRASMs, this is because other missiles that will be introduced will have anti-ship capability.

The LRASM is and always will be a missile that gives a provisional capability to the US Navy. I would argue that if the supersonic version of the LRASM had been developed, the LRASM could move from being an interim missile in US stockpile to establishing itself as a key factor in the US Navy's anti-ship capability, although some stealth capability of the missile would have been reduced if the LRASM to have supersonic speeds.
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
2,828
Reaction score
1,243
The LRASM is and always will be a missile that gives a provisional capability to the US Navy.

That's a very service acquisition program perspective that is likely not to fly with the COCOMs. At the end of the day, there is a combined buy between the USN and USAF and the platforms are going to be expanded. So anywhere from 400-800 LRASMs need to to be purchased and that number could grow significantly if the COCOM and Congress desires that via PDI. When Increment 2 gets established it will still be a RDT&E program and will likely have a 5-10 year EMD. Unfortunately, paper capability doesn't fight wars and nor can you petition your opponent to wait till you develop and test new capability. Expect there to be continuous pressure from various stakeholders to order more LRASM rounds for both AF and Navy. Same for AARGM-ER, SiAW, PrSM, and SDB-II and a few other weapon programs that have just entered or are about to enter production.

Given that they don't have JSM and don't plan on it either, Block V TLAM still not inducted (with a seeker), and SM-6 1B moving to a more traditional acquisition program that has added 3-4 years to it, LRASM is the best that you have currently. By a long distance so if you are planning for near-medium term capability, maximizing buy rates is the only option. Just a couple of years ago, the plan was to buy 98 LRASMs in lot-8. This has now been reduced to 71. So if INDO-PACOM or Congress requests close to 100 that lot it wouldn't be out of line. In fact it would be the same the USAF and USN expected to buy just two years ago.
 
Last edited:

Gorrilhas

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Sep 22, 2021
Messages
15
Reaction score
7
The LRASM is and always will be a missile that gives a provisional capability to the US Navy.

That's a very service acquisition program perspective that is likely not to fly with the COCOMs. At the end of the day, there is a combined buy between the USN and USAF and the platforms are going to be expanded. So anywhere from 400-800 LRASMs need to to be purchased and that number could grow significantly if the COCOM and Congress desires that via PDI. When Increment 2 gets established it will still be a RDT&E program and will likely have a 5-10 year EMD. Unfortunately, paper capability doesn't fight wars and nor can you petition your opponent to wait till you develop and test new capability. Expect there to be continuous pressure from various stakeholders to order more LRASM rounds for both AF and Navy. Same for AARGM-ER, SiAW, PrSM, and SDB-II and a few other weapon programs that have just entered or are about to enter production.

Given that they don't have JSM and don't plan on it either, Block V TLAM still not inducted (with a seeker), and SM-6 1B moving to a more traditional acquisition program that has added 3-4 years to it, LRASM is the best that you have currently. By a long distance so if you are planning for near-medium term capability, maximizing buy rates is the only option. Just a couple of years ago, the plan was to buy 98 LRASMs in lot-8. This has now been reduced to 71. So if INDO-PACOM or Congress requests close to 100 that lot it wouldn't be out of line. In fact it would be the same the USAF and USN expected to buy just two years ago.
We definitely agree to disagree. But I will leave a few remarks:

The number of targets needed for the use of LRASM, even considering the scenario of the western Pacific, still does not present this issue of urgency to increase production, although the Chinese navy is being expanded and improving its quality, the number of ships necessary for the use of the LRASM is unnecessary from the point of view of having an annual acquisition of 100 units of the anti-ship missile. The current total missile stock number should be 130 to 150 units produced, if you stabilize the production number at 50 units annually by 2025, the inventory will increase to somewhere between 280 to 300 units produced.

Continuing with the argument, by the year 2020 the LRASM inventory was 92-99 missiles produced, at the end of the year 2022 based on budget planning, the number should be completed in a production of 188 to 195 LRASM missiles. Since 2020, the US Navy's goal is to order 48 LRASM missiles annually over the next 4 years, which would be on schedule until 2024, therefore, the dedicated planning for the US Navy's LRASM acquisition should remain the same, establishing itself on schedule. of the Navy to acquire 210 missiles between 2020 and 2025, with USAF orders complementing the number of total missiles produced.

lrasm 1.JPG

I come to point out that Congress itself reduced the amount of LRASM acquired from the US Navy from 324 to 309 missiles until the last batch. The USAF has a production schedule totaling 179 LRASM until the last batch of acquisition, visualizing the number of orders, it becomes almost a truth that the number of LRASM missiles ordered can reach the number of 100 units per year, but only by two years, 2023 and 2024, but this will depend on the ordering of both services, but the planning if fulfilled, in two years the production will reach the peak of 100 LRASM.

But if the schedule is not met and based on the US Navy's own acquisition program planning and also based on the USAF's acquisition history, I predict exactly that amount of 25-29 LRASM missiles produced, which totals the number of missiles produced in their maximum quantity of 77 LRASMs per year. Let's assume that 77 LRASM missiles are produced in 2023 and 2024, at the end of the fiscal year there would be a total of 349 LRASMs produced, and if you keep production constant in the following year in 2025, the number will rise to 426 LRASMs.

However, until 2025, the number of Tomahawk Block IV missiles being converted to the anti-ship version of the missile will be 300 to 400 missiles with an anti-ship capability with more than 1,500 range.

Also in 2016, the US Navy already requested the modification of 245 TLAMS to include anti-ship capability, by 2025, the anti-ship capability of the Tomahawk family will certainly be in the hundreds. The first batch of the modified missile has already been delivered to the US Navy since last year, as the article reports: https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2021/03/raytheon-delivers-first-batch-of- block-v-tomahawk-missiles-to-us-navy/

It is worth noting that the proposed planning of the US Navy since the fiscal 2021 budget foresees the purchase of 850 anti-ship missiles between the years 2020 and 2025 with the sole function of searching and destroying enemy ships from a distance.

So far, we have 426 LRSAMs and more than 300 anti-ship-capable Tomahawk missiles, and that's considering minimal Tomahawk conversion estimates, because I find it very hard to believe that the US Navy requested the conversion of only 55 Tomahawk missiles in a 5-year span. between 2016 to 2021, but considering 300 Tomahawk missiles being converted, which makes a total of 726 anti-ship missiles by 2025.

Harpoons missiles are the backbone of the US Navy. Based on the 404 Harpoons missiles sold to Taiwan and considering that the Harpoons to be upgraded are already purchased and paid for – nearly 8,000 were delivered in total over the life of the program as well as arguing based on the annual upgrade of the Harpoons missiles already employed in the budgets published, I would say the US Navy has a stockpile of over 2,500 Harpoons, I will disregard that total number and put only the missiles with the Harpoon Block II+ upgrade kit, based on the schedule, the US Navy is getting 100 Harpoons missiles annually, which totals up to 2025, a total number of 300 upgraded Harpoons missiles, considering the deadline starting in 2022, ignoring the fact that this schedule has been established since 2019.

So far there are 1026 modern anti-ship missiles, excluding the rest of the 2000 Harpoons that have not yet been updated.

The US Navy planned to receive up to 189 NSM missiles between the fiscal years 2020 to 2025, within the US Navy's schedule to receive 850 missiles between LRASM, MST, NSM - the US Navy wants to acquire 775 SM-6s.

If you view within the US Navy's 2025 timeline, the Navy expects to receive 210 LRASM between the years 2020 to 2025, 189 NSMs in the same period, that leaves 451 MST (I estimated 300 MSTs) to be received in the US Navy in the same period. time course.

850 LRASM, MST and NSM, 775 SM-6 and 300 Harpoons, we already have a force of modern missiles totaling 1,925 anti-ship missiles or with secondary capability to shoot down ships. I am disregarding SLAM-ER, remaining Harpoons that have not been upgraded, and other shorter-range missiles with secondary anti-ship function, which would increase by 3,925 anti-ship missiles with ready capability by 2025 if we include the Harpoons. As well as partially disregarding the USAF's anti-ship capability in this scenario.


Where can this be interpreted as paper capacity by 2025?

I agree with the fact that the situation can change and the number of orders can be increased, including the number of LRASM missiles ordered by the USAF will certainly grow next year and in 2024, but the pace of orders from the US Navy remains stable, and so far, there is no indication that this will change, subjective analysis may suggest that Congress, COCOMs and the DoD may request an increase in LRASM production, but for the time being, this assertion is not supported by any foundation.

We will wait for FY2023 to be published and we will be able to have a better basis for argumentation and not be analyzing it based on estimates, but based on the requirement of the armed services.
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
2,828
Reaction score
1,243
The number of targets needed for the use of LRASM, even considering the scenario of the western Pacific, still does not present this issue of urgency to increase production

If that's the case who in the Air Force and/or Navy was stupid enough to include nearly 100 LRASMs in FY-23 just a couple of years ago when clearly this many were not needed? I'm not inventing a number of 90-100 but merely stating that as of just a couple of years ago this number was part of the official USAF/USN plan.

The current total missile stock number should be 130 to 150 units produced

149 ordered through FY-20 with a few used up as well so that should be close. 96 missiles in backlog including yet to be ordered FY-22 rounds. So by 2023 early 2024, they should have 245 missiles minus any that have been used for testing or training.
However, until 2025, the number of Tomahawk Block IV missiles being converted to the anti-ship version of the missile will be 300 to 400 missiles with an anti-ship capability with more than 1,500 range.

Has the Tomahawk with a seeker even test flown yet?
Also in 2016, the US Navy already requested the modification of 245 TLAMS to include anti-ship capability, by 2025, the anti-ship capability of the Tomahawk family will certainly be in the hundreds

I don't think those are the ones with a seeker so I doubt they are alternatives to LRASM.
The US Navy planned to receive up to 189 NSM missiles between the fiscal years 2020 to 2025, within the US Navy's schedule to receive 850 missiles between LRASM, MST, NSM - the US Navy wants to acquire 775 SM-6s.

The NSM is only available to one class and that class usually has 2-4 ships on an actual deployment (if they even have a missile on) with one half of the class basically doing SOUTHCOM deployments and not yet having those missiles anyway. These aren't additive capabilities but rather very limited short ranged anti ship weapons just for one class (and in the 2030s for the FFG(X)) . LRASM on the other hand is a long range networked anti-ship weapon. So this is apples to oranges really from anyone looking at it from a capability point of view and not merely an accounting perspective of adding up missiles to achieve some sort of satisfactory count.

but the pace of orders from the US Navy remains stable, and so far, there is no indication that this will change

I wasn't suggesting that the pace for the US Navy changes but rather the Air Force will need to change if there is pressure from the COCOMs. The AF has reduced its projected FY-23 and FY-24 orders, if those are restored to what it wanted during this time just a couple of years ago we'd be looking at close to 100 AURs produced a year.
 
Last edited:

jsport

what do you know about surfing Major? you're from-
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
4,318
Reaction score
1,915
If every SDBis on a path to Stormbreaker, for instance, cost will rise. Powered JSOW Etc etc demand for rising cost upgrades is a given.
Milano: The StormBreaker capability gives you the ability to stand off at greater than 45 nautical miles. It also gives you the ability to autonomously use the tri-mode seeker in the front end to classify and engage targets.

 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
2,828
Reaction score
1,243
Not sure if this is the best place, but the French CAESAR completed a series of demonstrations with Raytheon's Excalibur round reaching targets in excess of 46 km back in september 2021. The CAESAR was demonstrated to the US Army along with several other self propelled 155 mm systems.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LTKhwfYgoqY
 

jsport

what do you know about surfing Major? you're from-
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
4,318
Reaction score
1,915
..hope the French buy Excalibre.
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
2,828
Reaction score
1,243
Looks like the UK is about to join the US and Australia on the PrSM missile in the coming years -

Swift said the most significant step forward for Great Britain was the confirmation of their intentions to begin the process for entering into the agreement on the precision strike missile.

Kamper agreed the precision strike missile has “tremendous capability. It’s a product of what our Army started a few years ago with these cross-functional teams,” he said. “This can be a tremendous capability that we’ll need if we fight in a near-peer conflict, large scale ground combat type scenario, so I’m glad you all will have it too.”

 

Similar threads

Top