• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

Navy's Next Generation Strike Capability

bobbymike

ACCESS: USAP
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
10,532
Reaction score
1,512
Seems to be a new family of systems different enough from LRASM to warrant its' own thread IMHO.

Navy Moving Closer to Acquiring Devastating Ship-Killing Stealth Missiles

Top defense contractors are poised to compete in a major industry battle to develop autonomous missiles for the U.S. Navy that can kill enemy ships at sea and demolish air-defense radar sites inland.

Although the Navy has so far released few details on what it plans to buy, missile manufacturers like Lockheed Martin, Raytheon and Boeing are keeping a close eye on a program the Navy has dubbed “next-generation strike capability.”

The Navy is seeking funds in its 2016-2020 budget to begin the development of next-generation strike weapons, with the goal to start an industry competition in fiscal year 2017. But the Navy has yet to settle on specific requirements.

In about a decade or so, the next-generation strike capability, or NGSC, would supplement or replace the current Harpoon and Tomahawk cruise missiles. What remains unknown is whether next-generation strike will be a single missile or a mix of weapons that would include ship killers and land-strike missiles that would target enemy air defenses deep inland.

The decision to move forward with next-generation strike comes after years of internal debate on how the Navy should arm itself for potential maritime wars against rising powers like China. The U.S. Pacific Command has singled out a new anti-ship missile as an “urgent operational need.”

Of concern to PACOM and to naval advocates on Capitol Hill is the lack of anti-ship weapons aboard Navy surface combatants, and they fear that current ship-launched cruise missiles are not stealthy enough to be able to penetrate the most advanced air defenses. An extended reach of 1,000 nautical miles or more is a key priority in the next-generation strike program, so Navy ships can operate within range of Chinese surface combatants equipped with anti-ship cruise missiles.

The Navy already has tested a new anti-ship missile that can be fired from fighter jets and strategic bombers — known as the long-range anti-ship missile, or LRASM, made by Lockheed Martin. Started in 2009 under the auspices of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, the LRASM is a modified version of the joint air-to-surface standoff missile-extended range that Lockheed built for the U.S Air Force. DARPA announced in February that an LRASM prototype scored three-for-three in consecutive flight tests.

“Once operational, LRASM would play a significant role in ensuring military access to operate in open ocean/blue waters and the littorals due to its enhanced ability to discriminate and conduct tactical engagements from extended ranges,” DARPA said in a news release.

A key feature of this missile is a terminal guidance system that would allow it to reach a target even if the military were denied access to GPS signals or other network links.

Lockheed officials said the company is independently developing a ship-launched variant in anticipation of a future competition. The Navy chose the air-launched LRASM over other systems offered by Raytheon and Kongsberg. Lockheed is producing 90 missiles for the Navy that will be deployed on Super Hornet fighters and Air Force B-1 bombers by 2019.

In next-generation strike, the Navy merged what used to be two separate projects: One called “offensive anti-surface weapon increment 2” and another dubbed “next-generation land attack weapon.” The new missile, or family of weapons, would have greater range, destruction power and survivability than the current Harpoon anti-ship cruise missile and the Tomahawk ship-launched land attack cruise missile.

Analysts for years have questioned the Navy’s efforts to keep up with growing technological advances by China and other nations. “China is building a modern and regionally powerful Navy with a modest but growing capability for conducting operations beyond China’s near-seas region. The question of how the United States should respond to China’s military modernization effort is a key issue in U.S. defense planning,” wrote naval analyst Ronald O'Rourke, of the Congressional Research Service.

China has acquired Russian-made anti-ship cruise missiles that are carried by Russian-made destroyers and submarines, and has developed other missiles domestically, O’Rourke said.

The implication for the U.S. Navy is that it needs aircraft and weapons with longer ranges. The Navy is “going to have to adopt an offensive mindset,” naval strategist Bryan Clark, of the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, told the House Armed Services Committee’s seapower and projection forces subcommittee.

“Today's surface fleet is more focused on defeating enemy missiles and torpedoes, than attacking the aircraft, submarines or sub-ships that have launched them,” Clark said. “Surface forces need to focus on killing the archer instead of shooting down its arrows.” The archers in this case are aircraft, submarines, and surface ships that are able to launch anti-ship cruise missiles, Clark said. “Today, the surface ships we deploy don't have weapons that are able to reach enemy aircraft, ships or submarines until we're already well within range of their anti-ship cruise missiles.”

Missile manufacturers believe the Navy will communicate its next-generation strike wish list some time in 2016. Competitors are weighing how best to position themselves. If the Navy chooses to combine the anti-ship and land-attack mission and select only one manufacturer, the stakes would be huge. Pressure to keep costs under control could benefit companies that spend their own funds to upgrade existing missiles.

Lockheed is viewed as having the inside track because it is already producing an air-launched anti-ship cruise missile and is developing a ship-launched variant. The company is expanding its manufacturing plant in Troy, Alabama, said Hady Mourad, tactical missiles advanced program director at Lockheed Martin. He said the company spent $32 million of internal R&D funds to mature the technology.

What specifically Lockheed would propose for next-generation strike is still to be determined, said company spokeswoman Amy Cochrum. LRASM is being designed as an anti-surface maritime weapon, but with minor retrofits it could be become a dual-role missile, prosecuting both land and sea targets, she told National Defense. “Until U.S. Navy requirements are defined and communicated to industry, final configurations or variants would be speculation at best.”

The Boeing Co. recently unveiled a modernized version of the Harpoon missile but that is not likely to be a contender for next-generation strike, a company spokeswoman said.

Boeing is waiting to hear more about what the Navy wants before it decides on its offering. Designing a new missile is one possibility, but it is too soon to say, said Deborah VanNierop, spokeswoman for Boeing Phantom Works. “Next-generation strike capability is in the very early stages and currently there are no requirements,” she noted. Boeing’s advanced weapons team has “briefed the Navy on key technologies and system options,” VanNierop told National Defense. “The team plans to continue to engage with the Navy as they formulate their requirements.”

Raytheon, meanwhile, expects to enjoy a key advantage as the manufacturer of the Tomahawk missile, as the Navy already has invested huge sums into the program. The company also makes the joint standoff weapon, an air-launched glide bomb that initially competed against LRASM. Raytheon has teamed with Norway’s Kongsberg Defense & Aerospace to develop an air-launched anti-ship missile and a ship-launched version for the Navy’s Littoral Combat Ship.

Next-generation strike will likely include “improvements to current programs as well as potentially follow-on technologies,” Dave Adams, Tomahawk program director, said in a statement. “Raytheon is working with the Navy to minimize risk and costs by using the proven Tomahawk and JSOW weapon systems.”

Both Tomahawk and JSOW, Adams said, can defeat modern integrated air defenses. “And with the improvements we are developing for Tomahawk, we anticipate that this will hold any high value moving target at risk out to greater than 1,000 miles on land and at sea. And, both JSOW and Tomahawk are already fully integrated on U.S. Navy platforms, saving an enormous amount of integration costs.”

Raytheon recently announced it funded the development of a multi-mode seeker for the Tomahawk Block 4 cruise missile. “This is a critical step in enabling the missile to strike moving targets on land and at sea,” said Mike Jarrett, vice president of Raytheon Air Warfare Systems.
 

TomS

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
4,477
Reaction score
1,492
Isn't Next Gneration Strike a renaming/redefinition of LRASM Phase II?
 

Moose

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2010
Messages
1,371
Reaction score
338
TomS said:
Isn't Next Gneration Strike a renaming/redefinition of LRASM Phase II?
Yes and no. The Original DARPA LRASM program included demonstration of air and sea-launched versions of its two missiles. But along the way to becoming an operational weapon system a lot has changed. The most recent ASM plan prior to NGSC was the Objective Anti-Surface Weapon program. OASuW was broken into two increments: a sole-source purchase of the air-luanched LRASM for I1 and a competition for an air- and surface-launched fully realized weapon for I2.

NGSC has merged that second increment competition with the program to replace Tomahawk, and as much as they are leaving open the "family of weapons" option open the Navy is VERY INTERESTED in a single missile that can full both roles.
 

jsport

what do you know about surfing Major? you're from-
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
2,304
Reaction score
367
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pr34Nt3BqaQ

Thank you for posting
Good that Rank is thinking about cdrs intent and reducing bandwidth but if so classified noone will know how to use it when they need to. I should become standard practice ..the silent fleet.

PNT seems from the outside to be a Joint jumbled leaderless strategy.

Tomahawk 4 vs LRASM is a very necessary competition to reduce cost while enhancing capability.

Wish one could believe agile 6-1 to-3 S&T for lesser than major items but more crats and pontificating w/ no $, combined w/ alleged public sector development (including academ) ..not seeing it. Most SBIR solictiations are too peripheral yes necessary but where is the medium end item innovation?

issues like PNT highlights more S&T consoldiation not more resourceless/decision less innovation cells. near term solutions are crew discovered..system solved.
 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,662
Reaction score
1,709
jsport said:
Tomahawk 4 vs LRASM is a very necessary competition to reduce cost while enhancing capability.

How's it going to reduce cost? One is a paper idea the other is in testing. If Raytheon actually HAD a supersonic Tomahawk flying that would be one thing. It doesn't, and thus will just introduce delays. (More $$$$$.) The best way to "reduce cost while enhancing capability" (page 47 of the management buzzword guidebook) would be to just finish developing LRASM and put it in service.
 

jsport

what do you know about surfing Major? you're from-
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
2,304
Reaction score
367
sferrin said:
jsport said:
Tomahawk 4 vs LRASM is a very necessary competition to reduce cost while enhancing capability.

How's it going to reduce cost? One is a paper idea the other is in testing. If Raytheon actually HAD a supersonic Tomahawk flying that would be one thing. It doesn't, and thus will just introduce delays. (More $$$$$.) The best way to "reduce cost while enhancing capability" (page 47 of the management buzzword guidebook) would be to just finish developing LRASM and put it in service.
LRASM is not the jump the Admiral seeks and he said so.. in the mean time the Gov needs to press the possible w/ Tomahawk epecially submunitions/systems and/or again a part of family of defense penetrating systems.. not a killable pricey piece
 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,662
Reaction score
1,709
jsport said:
sferrin said:
jsport said:
Tomahawk 4 vs LRASM is a very necessary competition to reduce cost while enhancing capability.

How's it going to reduce cost? One is a paper idea the other is in testing. If Raytheon actually HAD a supersonic Tomahawk flying that would be one thing. It doesn't, and thus will just introduce delays. (More $$$$$.) The best way to "reduce cost while enhancing capability" (page 47 of the management buzzword guidebook) would be to just finish developing LRASM and put it in service.
LRASM is not the jump the Admiral seeks and he said so.. in the mean time the Gov needs to press the possible w/ Tomahawk epecially submunitions/systems and/or again a part of family of defense penetrating systems.. not a killable pricey piece

If LRASM isn't Tomahawk sure ain't.
 

jsport

what do you know about surfing Major? you're from-
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
2,304
Reaction score
367
sferrin said:
jsport said:
sferrin said:
jsport said:
Tomahawk 4 vs LRASM is a very necessary competition to reduce cost while enhancing capability.

How's it going to reduce cost? One is a paper idea the other is in testing. If Raytheon actually HAD a supersonic Tomahawk flying that would be one thing. It doesn't, and thus will just introduce delays. (More $$$$$.) The best way to "reduce cost while enhancing capability" (page 47 of the management buzzword guidebook) would be to just finish developing LRASM and put it in service.
LRASM is not the jump the Admiral seeks and he said so.. in the mean time the Gov needs to press the possible w/ Tomahawk epecially submunitions/systems and/or again a part of family of defense penetrating systems.. not a killable pricey piece

If LRASM isn't Tomahawk sure ain't.
The admiral wants leap ahead..and given the defenses they would both likely face one can see a larger number ie the old soviet strategy might be hedge consideration. until something like gas guns for instance :)
 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,662
Reaction score
1,709
Gas guns? Why go for gas guns when railguns are far superior. Gas guns might have been good as an interim technology back in the 90s but The Cold War is Over® killed that.
 

jsport

what do you know about surfing Major? you're from-
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
2,304
Reaction score
367
sferrin said:
Gas guns? Why go for gas guns when railguns are far superior. Gas guns might have been good as an interim technology back in the 90s but The Cold War is Over® killed that.

::) can't deny power density physics. capacitors ain't
maybe in your universe but not the real one.
 

DrRansom

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Dec 15, 2012
Messages
538
Reaction score
11
Wait, the Navy wants leap ahead technology more advanced than the LRASM for anti-ship missiles? They want this technology to the extent that they'd bypass the LRASM?

That is, to put it mildly, rather silly.
 

Triton

Donald McKelvy
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
9,719
Reaction score
660
Website
deeptowild.blogspot.com
"Pit LRASM Against Tomahawk For Anti-Ship Missile: VADM Aucoin"
By Sydney J. Freedberg Jr. on August 05, 2015 at 4:40 PM

Source:
http://breakingdefense.com/2015/08/pit-lrasm-against-tomahawk-for-anti-ship-missile-vadm-aucoin/

WASHINGTON: For all the US Navy’s worldwide might, it’s painfully short on ship-killing firepower. The Pacific fleet in particular risks being “out-sticked” by longer-ranged Chinese missiles. Today, the Deputy Chief of Naval Operations outlined a plan to fill that gap. The two competing options: an update of the old, reliable Tomahawk or the new Long-Range Anti-Ship Missile.

Lockheed Martin’s LRASM, a modified Air Force missile, should compete against an upgrade of Raytheon’s Tomahawk to be the Navy’s next-generation Offensive Anti-Surface Warfare (OASuW) weapon, Vice Adm. Joseph Aucoin said today. The Navy would still buy LRASMs as an interim measure to meet the “urgent operational need” of Pacific Command, he said, but “the [long-term] follow-on to that, we will compete broadly.”

The Raytheon-built Tomahawk is famous for attacking stationary targets on land, but except for a short-lived anti-ship variant now out of service, it’s not been used against mobile or floating targets. That changed dramatically in January, when a modified Tomahawk punched a hole through a shipping container on the deck of a moving ship. (The test missile didn’t have a live warhead).

The tech-savvy Deputy Defense Secretary, Bob Work, called the Tomahawk’s new capability a “game-changing” piece of the military’s new offset strategy.

Aucoin told reporters at the Center for Strategic and International Studies that he wants “a competition to get the best munition” possible. “What I would like to see happen is take those capabilities that we need and start inserting those into a Block IV [Tomahawk], and [compare that] to what we have with LRASM Increment 1, and have those two compete for the next-generation strike weapon,” Aucoin said. Block IV is the latest-generation Tomahawk with a new warhead and new datalinks, but it’s still limited — for now — to land targets.

“Competing LRASM and TASM [a Tomahawk Anti-Ship Missile] for the OASuW mission may be a really good idea,” said Bryan Clark, a retired Navy commander and former top aide to the Chief of Naval Operations. “The Tomahawk is a good land-attack missile and has significantly improved its survivability with Block IV, [but] it isn’t as survivable as LRASM.” Against low-tech adversaries, that may not matter. Against a sophisticated anti-access/area denial (A2/AD) defense, however, the enemy could shoot down incoming Tomahawks more easily than incoming LRASMs, so you’d have to fire more Tomahawks to ensure the same result.

On the other hand, Clark continued, the Tomahawk cost less. It also has longer range and larger payload — indeed, so much so that it’s probably overkill against enemy warships, he said. (The Tomahawk’s designed to strike targets deep inland, which by definition are further away from US Navy warships than enemy ships at sea).

“I am generally in favor of smaller weapons with less standoff range that we could carry in larger numbers,” he said, since quantity has a quality all its own.

“Another option in the mix is [Norwegian firm] Kongsberg’s Naval Strike Missile, which has about the same range and cost as LRASM” — about $2 million a missile — “but is already in production,” Clark added. “The only other options are land-attack missiles not yet adapted to [naval] surface warfare such as ATACMS or much smaller, shorter-range missiles such as Hellfire Longbow and Griffin.”

Clark recommends the Navy upgrade existing Tomahawks to the Block IV standard, plus the anti-ship capability. That would give commanders tremendous flexibility in using the same missile against either land or naval targets as needed, instead of having to allocate launch tubes exclusively to one mission or the other. “The Navy should then continue producing Tomahawk,” he said, “until the OASuW weapon, whichever wins, is developed and in production, instead of accepting a gap in surface-to-surface missile production,” as is the current plan. LRASM, meanwhile, should be made capable of attacking land targets as well as ships.

In the interests of flexibility, Clark also recommends upgrading the SM-6 Standard Missile — designed to shoot down incoming enemy missiles and aircraft — so it can strike surface ships. (The Navy’s already adding GPS to SM-6 so it can hit land targets). The SM-6 is a highly sophisticated missile defense interceptor that costs $3.5 to $4 million, roughly twice as much as a LRASM or Kongsberg NSM, he said, so it wouldn’t be the first choice for an anti-ship shot, but it would give commanders one more option in a pinch.

Is the Navy pursuing an anti-ship SM-6? I asked Aucoin and his colleague Rear Adm. Mat Winter, Chief of Naval Research.

“I don’t know if we can talk about it,” Aucoin said uncertainly. “I wouldn’t,” Winter said emphatically. We’ll take that for a “yes.
 

Triton

Donald McKelvy
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
9,719
Reaction score
660
Website
deeptowild.blogspot.com
"Navy: Raytheon Tomahawk Likely to Compete in Next Generation Anti-Ship Missile Contest"
By: Sam LaGrone
August 5, 2015 6:05 PM

Source:
http://news.usni.org/2015/08/05/navy-raytheon-tomahawk-likely-to-compete-in-next-generation-anti-ship-missile-contest

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Raytheon’s Tomahawk Land Attack Missile (TLAM) will be a likely competitor in the Navy’s search for a next generation anti-ship missile to replace the 1980s era weapons widely in use in the service, the deputy chief of naval operations warfare systems (N9) said Wednesday.

Set to start in Fiscal Year 2017, the contest for the Navy’s Offensive Anti-Surface Warfare (OASuW) Increment II seeks to replace the Navy’s decades-old inventory of Boeing RGM-84 Harpoons with more technologically sophisticated weapons.

OASuW Increment I — an ongoing program between DARPA and the Navy — is being developed using the Lockheed Martin Long Range Anti-Ship Missile (LRASM) to meet an urgent operational need from U.S. Pacific Command.

LRASM is now set to be an air launched weapon, while the next OASuW increment will likely be fired from a Mk 41 Vertical Launch System (VLS) resident on the service’s guided missile destroyers and cruisers. Lockheed has begun early internal testing of LRASM in a vertical launch configuration from a Mk 41.

“OASUW isn’t necessarily LRASM increment two, we want a competition to get the best munition we can,” said N9 Vice Adm. Joseph Aucoin during a talk on the future of naval capabilities hosted by Center for Strategic and International Studies and the U.S. Naval Institute.
“Harnessing new technologies, putting some in a Tomahawk and then looking with what we’ve done with LRASM increment one to have that competition between OASuW I and the Tomahawk.”

In addition to LRASM and Block IV Tomahawks, Kongsberg’s Naval Strike Missile — set to compete for the Navy’s over the horizon (OTH) missile for the Littoral Combat Ship as part of a teaming arrangement with Raytheon — has been mentioned as a competitor for the OASuW II program.
Tomahawk Test

Unlike its predecessors, the Block IV TLAM can have its flight path updated on the go via data links and is capable of hitting moving targets.

Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR) conducted a successful test of the missile against a moving maritime target in January to prove the Block IV TLAM variant could handle the task.

Early reviews of the test were positive.

In February Deputy Secretary of Defense Bob Work said modifying the Block IV test proved “potentially a game changing capability for not a lot of cost. It’s a 1000 mile anti-ship cruise missile.”

Following the test, USNI News understands the Navy was examining the Block IV as an anti-surface missile gap-filler until the new OASuWs came online.

While Aucoin acknowledged the success of the anti-surface test, he said the current crop of Tomahawks may better serve in their land attack role.

“There was was a test done and it did hit a platform. There is [an anti-surface] capability there but Block IV has done very well over land and we want to enhance its capability,” Aucoin said.

The Navy and Raytheon are set to overhaul existing TLAMs in the inventory through a recertification process that will add another 15 year life to older weapons, announced in January.

“We’re going to stand up a recertification line and we’re going to leverage new technologies, warhead, command and control, data links and make sure Tomahawk is a very viable weapon in the future,” Aucoin said.
“The Tomahawk is doing very well and the [recertification line] will not only extend its life but give it additional capability. Incrementally will enable us to put in [enough] capability so the next generation strike weapon isn’t such a big jump.”

Raytheon has said it’s worked on internal research and development efforts for new TLAM that could be inserted in the older weapons as part of the recertification.

While OASuW II is set to enter the fleet in the 2020s — based on the Navy’s current TLAM tack Aucoin outlined — the surface Navy will likely still rely on the decades old Harpoon without a Tomahawk to bridge the gap.
 

Triton

Donald McKelvy
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
9,719
Reaction score
660
Website
deeptowild.blogspot.com
Are available VLS cells such an issue aboard United States Navy ships that commanders would be reluctant to load the anti-ship only LRASM and prefer an improved Block IV Tomahawk that had both anti-ship and land attack capability?
 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,662
Reaction score
1,709
Triton said:
Are available VLS cells such an issue aboard United States Navy ships that commanders would be reluctant to load the anti-ship only LRASM and prefer an improved Block IV Tomahawk that had both anti-ship and land attack capability?

Seems like they didn't really think that one out. Tomahawk isn't survivable in a modern naval battle, and they'd have to fire many more of them in hopes one actually got through, compared to LRASM. So LRASM would be the better choice if saving VLS cells were the goal. Or they could just stretch LRASM to get Tomahawks range and have the best of both worlds. Let's not do that though, makes too much sense. Seriously, Tomahawk for an antiship missile with today's defenses is about the stupidest idea, short of using blimps, that they could have come up with. We need to get away from, "let's come up with a really lousy solution because we already have it and it's cheap" and do what actually gets the job done. You do not want your defense relying on duct tape and bailing wire to hold it together.
 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,662
Reaction score
1,709
jsport said:
sferrin said:
Gas guns? Why go for gas guns when railguns are far superior. Gas guns might have been good as an interim technology back in the 90s but The Cold War is Over® killed that.

::) can't deny power density physics. capacitors ain't
maybe in your universe but not the real one.

Who said anything about power density? Oh right, nobody.
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
2,262
Reaction score
269
If the LRASM-A isn't enough of a "Leap" over the Harpoon, then the Navy could always develop the LRASM -B ???
 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,662
Reaction score
1,709
bring_it_on said:
If the LRASM-A isn't enough of a "Leap" over the Harpoon, then the Navy could always develop the LRASM -B ???

No, no, too risky. It's only a 35 year old design after all. No, if we call Tomahawk a game-changer the emperor will have clothes. (Pretty sad considering back in the day new weapons were all about taking risks in order to one-up the other guy.)
 

jsport

what do you know about surfing Major? you're from-
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
2,304
Reaction score
367
sferrin said:
jsport said:
sferrin said:
Gas guns? Why go for gas guns when railguns are far superior. Gas guns might have been good as an interim technology back in the 90s but The Cold War is Over® killed that.

::) can't deny power density physics. capacitors ain't
maybe in your universe but not the real one.

Who said anything about power density? Oh right, nobody.
let us spell this out romper room style
electric capacitors ie pwer source for railguns will never have the energy density of fuels.. thus railguns are always inferior.
 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,662
Reaction score
1,709
jsport said:
let us spell this out romper room style
electric capacitors ie pwer source for railguns will never have the energy density of fuels.. thus railguns are always inferior.

You get your information from Romper Room? That explains a lot. Pro-tip: energy density isn't the only factor in the equation genius.
 

jsport

what do you know about surfing Major? you're from-
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
2,304
Reaction score
367
sferrin said:
jsport said:
let us spell this out romper room style
electric capacitors ie pwer source for railguns will never have the energy density of fuels.. thus railguns are always inferior.

You get your information from Romper Room? That explains a lot. Pro-tip: energy density isn't the only factor in the equation genius.
listening to why fuels will not always provide a more efficient and powerful gun.. especially multistage ram accelerators
 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,662
Reaction score
1,709
jsport said:
sferrin said:
jsport said:
let us spell this out romper room style
electric capacitors ie pwer source for railguns will never have the energy density of fuels.. thus railguns are always inferior.

You get your information from Romper Room? That explains a lot. Pro-tip: energy density isn't the only factor in the equation genius.
listening to why fuels will not always provide a more efficient and powerful gun.. especially multistage ram accelerators

In English please.
 

jsport

what do you know about surfing Major? you're from-
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
2,304
Reaction score
367
sferrin said:
jsport said:
sferrin said:
jsport said:
let us spell this out romper room style
electric capacitors ie pwer source for railguns will never have the energy density of fuels.. thus railguns are always inferior.

You get your information from Romper Room? That explains a lot. Pro-tip: energy density isn't the only factor in the equation genius.
listening to why fuels will not always provide a more efficient and powerful gun.. especially multistage ram accelerators

In English please.
as stated before a small railg may make sense for rapid fire point defense but for fire support missions like anti-ship and bombardment no.
genius (bordering on personal attack)
 

bobbymike

ACCESS: USAP
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
10,532
Reaction score
1,512
jsport said:
sferrin said:
jsport said:
sferrin said:
jsport said:
let us spell this out romper room style
electric capacitors ie pwer source for railguns will never have the energy density of fuels.. thus railguns are always inferior.

You get your information from Romper Room? That explains a lot. Pro-tip: energy density isn't the only factor in the equation genius.
listening to why fuels will not always provide a more efficient and powerful gun.. especially multistage ram accelerators

In English please.
as stated before a small railg may make sense for rapid fire point defense but for fire support missions like anti-ship and bombardment no.
genius (bordering on personal attack)
Did you not hijack a railgun thread with your 'gas gun' fixation? If the Navy is actively focusing on and developing railguns saying over and over they should build gas guns it really futile don't you think?

Maybe start a new thread dedicated to the technology please.
 

jsport

what do you know about surfing Major? you're from-
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
2,304
Reaction score
367
bobbymike said:
jsport said:
sferrin said:
jsport said:
sferrin said:
jsport said:
let us spell this out romper room style
electric capacitors ie pwer source for railguns will never have the energy density of fuels.. thus railguns are always inferior.
as also stated before if you beleive there is no super-gun reserch continuing in the world then....

You get your information from Romper Room? That explains a lot. Pro-tip: energy density isn't the only factor in the equation genius.
listening to why fuels will not always provide a more efficient and powerful gun.. especially multistage ram accelerators

In English please.
as stated before a small railg may make sense for rapid fire point defense but for fire support missions like anti-ship and bombardment no.
genius (bordering on personal attack)
Did you not hijack a railgun thread with your 'gas gun' fixation? If the Navy is actively focusing on and developing railguns saying over and over they should build gas guns it really futile don't you think?

Maybe start a new thread dedicated to the technology please.
anyone who sense for history understands what the Paris gun meant to warfare and the V-3 thankfully did not but could have meant. The fetish for missiles resulted when the v-3 was destroyed. Railguns wouldn't even be mentiond if werent predominance of the Trump political method.. Any look of what should be in service and what is displays that. Political choice is often repeated theme across this forum on many threads. Recently about the TFx choice. Join the real world.
as also stated before if you beleive there is no super-gun research continuing in the world then....
history is still about outgunning or being outgunned.
 

bobbymike

ACCESS: USAP
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
10,532
Reaction score
1,512
jsport said:
bobbymike said:
jsport said:
sferrin said:
jsport said:
sferrin said:
jsport said:
let us spell this out romper room style
electric capacitors ie pwer source for railguns will never have the energy density of fuels.. thus railguns are always inferior.
as also stated before if you beleive there is no super-gun reserch continuing in the world then....

You get your information from Romper Room? That explains a lot. Pro-tip: energy density isn't the only factor in the equation genius.
listening to why fuels will not always provide a more efficient and powerful gun.. especially multistage ram accelerators

In English please.
as stated before a small railg may make sense for rapid fire point defense but for fire support missions like anti-ship and bombardment no.
genius (bordering on personal attack)
Did you not hijack a railgun thread with your 'gas gun' fixation? If the Navy is actively focusing on and developing railguns saying over and over they should build gas guns it really futile don't you think?

Maybe start a new thread dedicated to the technology please.
anyone who sense for history understands what the Paris gun meant to warfare and the V-3 thankfully did not but could have meant. The fetish for missiles resulted when the v-3 was destroyed. Railguns wouldn't even be mentiond if werent predominance of the Trump political method.. Any look of what should be in service and what is displays that. Political choice is often repeated theme across this forum on many threads. Recently about the TFx choice. Join the real world.
as also stated before if you beleive there is no super-gun research continuing in the world then....
history is still about outgunning or being outgunned.
Thanks for showing why you should start a SEPARATE thread as I previously mentioned and post away. Talk about TFX is almost exclusively mentioned ON THAT THREAD it sometimes is mentioned as a comparison to other programs BUT not mentioned over and over on every aircraft thread at SPF.

Saying over and over this is what I think should be is a waste of everyone's time.
 

Triton

Donald McKelvy
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
9,719
Reaction score
660
Website
deeptowild.blogspot.com
Vice Admiral Joseph Aucoin mentioned Offensive Anti-Surface Warfare (OASuW)/Increment 2, not Next Generation Strike. So I presume that the competition is for an anti-ship missile only beginning in 2017 to replace or supplement Harpoon. Bryan Clark, a retired Navy commander and former top aide to the Chief of Naval Operations, admits that Tomahawk is "probably overkill for enemy warships." Clark also said "The Tomahawk is a good land-attack missile and has significantly improved its survivability with Block IV, [but] it isn’t as survivable as LRASM.” Against low-tech adversaries, that may not matter. Against a sophisticated anti-access/area denial (A2/AD) defense, however, the enemy could shoot down incoming Tomahawks more easily than incoming LRASMs, so you’d have to fire more Tomahawks to ensure the same result."

Source:
http://breakingdefense.com/2015/08/pit-lrasm-against-tomahawk-for-anti-ship-missile-vadm-aucoin/

Does the Navy still intend to have a Next-Generation Land Attack Weapon competition to replace or supplement Tomahawk?
 

Triton

Donald McKelvy
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
9,719
Reaction score
660
Website
deeptowild.blogspot.com
sferrin said:
Seems like they didn't really think that one out. Tomahawk isn't survivable in a modern naval battle, and they'd have to fire many more of them in hopes one actually got through, compared to LRASM. So LRASM would be the better choice if saving VLS cells were the goal. Or they could just stretch LRASM to get Tomahawks range and have the best of both worlds. Let's not do that though, makes too much sense. Seriously, Tomahawk for an antiship missile with today's defenses is about the stupidest idea, short of using blimps, that they could have come up with. We need to get away from, "let's come up with a really lousy solution because we already have it and it's cheap" and do what actually gets the job done. You do not want your defense relying on duct tape and bailing wire to hold it together.

I understand that Offensive Anti-Surface Warfare (OASuW)/Increment 2 has a planned Initial Operational Capability (IOC) of 2024. While we are waiting for VLS-launched LRASM, does it make sense to upgrade existing Tomahawks to the Block IV standard, plus anti-ship capability, and use Tomahawk as a long-range anti-ship missile as proposed by Clark?
 

Triton

Donald McKelvy
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
9,719
Reaction score
660
Website
deeptowild.blogspot.com
sferrin said:
How's it going to reduce cost? One is a paper idea the other is in testing. If Raytheon actually HAD a supersonic Tomahawk flying that would be one thing. It doesn't, and thus will just introduce delays. (More $$$$$.) The best way to "reduce cost while enhancing capability" (page 47 of the management buzzword guidebook) would be to just finish developing LRASM and put it in service.

Isn't LRASM subsonic?
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
2,262
Reaction score
269
LRASM is a stealthy high subsonic missile designed around survivability, and performance in a contested environment (GPS degraded). A Tomohawk has to either become a stealthy design, carry a new payload that somehow makes to survivable or travel faster to have a better shot at penetrating ship defenses.
 

Triton

Donald McKelvy
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
9,719
Reaction score
660
Website
deeptowild.blogspot.com
bring_it_on said:
LRASM is a stealthy high subsonic missile designed around survivability, and performance in a contested environment (GPS degraded). A Tomohawk has to either become a stealthy design, carry a new payload that somehow makes to survivable or travel faster to have a better shot at penetrating ship defenses.

Thanks for the explanation.
 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,662
Reaction score
1,709
Triton said:
bring_it_on said:
LRASM is a stealthy high subsonic missile designed around survivability, and performance in a contested environment (GPS degraded). A Tomohawk has to either become a stealthy design, carry a new payload that somehow makes to survivable or travel faster to have a better shot at penetrating ship defenses.

Thanks for the explanation.

This outlines the concept a bit:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LvHlW1h_0XQ

It's more than just a stealthy subsonic missile. Has ESM and smarts to go with it.
 

jsport

what do you know about surfing Major? you're from-
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
2,304
Reaction score
367
bring_it_on said:
LRASM is a stealthy high subsonic missile designed around survivability, and performance in a contested environment (GPS degraded). A Tomohawk has to either become a stealthy design, carry a new payload that somehow makes to survivable or travel faster to have a better shot at penetrating ship defenses.
What steath does is questionalbe in the emerging threat environment and when countering hypersonic one neds hypersonic at least.
 

jsport

what do you know about surfing Major? you're from-
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
2,304
Reaction score
367
bobbymike said:
jsport said:
bobbymike said:
jsport said:
sferrin said:
jsport said:
sferrin said:
jsport said:
let us spell this out romper room style
electric capacitors ie pwer source for railguns will never have the energy density of fuels.. thus railguns are always inferior.
as also stated before if you beleive there is no super-gun reserch continuing in the world then....

You get your information from Romper Room? That explains a lot. Pro-tip: energy density isn't the only factor in the equation genius.
listening to why fuels will not always provide a more efficient and powerful gun.. especially multistage ram accelerators

In English please.
as stated before a small railg may make sense for rapid fire point defense but for fire support missions like anti-ship and bombardment no.
genius (bordering on personal attack)
Did you not hijack a railgun thread with your 'gas gun' fixation? If the Navy is actively focusing on and developing railguns saying over and over they should build gas guns it really futile don't you think?

Maybe start a new thread dedicated to the technology please.
anyone who sense for history understands what the Paris gun meant to warfare and the V-3 thankfully did not but could have meant. The fetish for missiles resulted when the v-3 was destroyed. Railguns wouldn't even be mentiond if werent predominance of the Trump political method.. Any look of what should be in service and what is displays that. Political choice is often repeated theme across this forum on many threads. Recently about the TFx choice. Join the real world.
as also stated before if you beleive there is no super-gun research continuing in the world then....
history is still about outgunning or being outgunned.
Thanks for showing why you should start a SEPARATE thread as I previously mentioned and post away. Talk about TFX is almost exclusively mentioned ON THAT THREAD it sometimes is mentioned as a comparison to other programs BUT not mentioned over and over on every aircraft thread at SPF.

Saying over and over this is what I think should be is a waste of everyone's time.
opps got baited and switched by the bopsies tw..s. Speaking of wasting time.. Starting to lose respect.
 

jsport

what do you know about surfing Major? you're from-
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
2,304
Reaction score
367
bring_it_on said:
LRASM is a stealthy high subsonic missile designed around survivability, and performance in a contested environment (GPS degraded). A Tomohawk has to either become a stealthy design, carry a new payload that somehow makes to survivable or travel faster to have a better shot at penetrating ship defenses.
Also Operation on GPS degraded is a complete misnomer peddling one either operates in GPS denied environment overtime or one doesn't. From the outside Joint PNT seems still quite unsolved.
 

jsport

what do you know about surfing Major? you're from-
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
2,304
Reaction score
367
http://www.themoscowtimes.com/business/article/russia-develops-new-fuel-for-hypersonic-cruise-missile/516053.html

Just in case there is any confusion about the hypersonic needing to be countered. Fastest gun helps also.
Again the Admiral wants leap ahead and he is correct.
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
2,262
Reaction score
269
So why is he not having a gun compete for the OsUW capability that wants to field something to replace the Harpoon by 2024? And as far as I know LRASM-A can perform in a GPS denied environment.
 

jsport

what do you know about surfing Major? you're from-
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
2,304
Reaction score
367
bring_it_on said:
So why is he not having a gun compete for the OsUW capability that wants to field something to replace the Harpoon by 2024? And as far as I know LRASM-A can perform in a GPS denied environment.

If LRASM can function in Denied great so could T -4 while another faster missile is developed. Stealth as it stands is of questionable value vs evolution of UV/IR as well advcd radar.
 

Similar threads

Top