LRASM :THE PROGRAME

[mosu]

The US Navy is beginning to acknowledge a growing problem that threatens its freedom of the seas: its strike reach is shrinking and aging, while potential opponents’ attack reach is expanding and modernizing. As new designs replace older planes, its carrier aircraft strike range is shrinking to 1950s levels. Meanwhile, its anti-ship and land attack missiles are generally older, medium-range subsonic designs like the Harpoon Block I, which are much more vulnerable to air defenses. In contrast, China is deploying supersonic SS-N-22 “Sunburn” missiles bought from Russia, and working on a DF-21 anti-ship ballistic missile. The Sunburn is just one of Russia’s supersonic anti-ship missile options for sale, and a joint venture with India has added the supersonic PJ-10 BrahMos.

The math is stark: enemies with longer reach, and better weapons, may be able to create large “no go” zones for the Navy in key conflict areas. In response, think-tanks like CSBA are proposing ideas like AirSea Battle, which emphasizes a combination of advance hardening, more stealth and long-range strike options, and a progressive campaign of blinding strikes and grinding interdiction campaigns. Success will require some changes to American weapons, beginning with the missiles that arm its ships and aircraft. Hence LRASM: the Long Range Anti-Ship Missile, with a secondary land-strike role.


The joint DARPA/U.S. Navy LRASM program was initiated in 2009 to deliver a new generation of anti-ship weapons, with longer ranges and better odds against improving air defense systems. Rob McHenry, a program manager in the Tactical Technology Office at DARPA, explained it this way to Aviation Week:

“We want US Navy cruisers and destroyers to be able to stand off from outside of potential adversaries’ direct counter fire range, and be able to safely engage and destroy high value targets they may be engaging against from extended range, well beyond potential adversary ranges that we may have to face…. “Once the missile flies that far, it has a requirement to be able to independently detect and validate the target that it was shot at. Finding that target, the missile will have to be able to penetrate the air defenses and finally, once it gets to that target, it has to have a lethal capability to make a difference once it gets there.”
The US military is also expecting an environment where enemies try to jam or destroy the GPS system and encrypted datalink transmissions, compounding its difficulties in targeting opponents if it can’t get many of its platforms through advanced air defenses. Those considerations underline the importance of autonomous targeting. Beyond their anti-jamming digital GPS, therefore, LRASM will also rely on a 2-way data link, a radar sensor that can detect ships (and might also be usable for navigation), and a day/night camera for positive identification and final targeting.

LRASM is not one missile, however; the program encompasses the rapid development and demonstration of 2 very distinct variants. Although it’s tempting to see them as an air-launched and a ship-launched variant, ultimately, both designs are intended for launch from either ships or aircraft:

Lockheed Martin is basing its LRASM-A design on their stealthy, subsonic, turbofan-powered AGM-158B JASSM-ER(Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile – Extended Range) cruise missile, which doubles the AGM-158 JASSM’s range to over 500 miles. The JASSM program has had more than its share of performance problems, but tests in 2010 saved the AGM-158 JASSM for continued production. The JASSM-ER is still in development, however, and not expected to deploy before 2013. JASSM is an air-launched weapon, but LRASM-A’s characteristics will make it a close counterpart to JASSM’s top rival, MBDA’s Storm Shadow/ Scalp Naval.


LRASM-B is envisioned as a ramjet-powered supersonic ship-launched missile, similar to earlier conceptions of hypersonic programs like the now-defunct RATTLRS. It’s intended to leverage prior ramjet development activities, and one of its challenges will be a suite of supporting sensors and avionics that can operate effectively at high Mach ramjet speeds. The most comparable missile out there is probably the Indo-Russian PJ-10 BrahMos, a Mach 2.8 heavy strike missile that can hit ships or land targets. Like LRASM-B, a Brahmos variant is currently being adapted for air launch, in addition to its standard ship/land-launched configuration. Unlike LRASM-B, there are also plans to put BrahMos on submarines.

During Phase 1 of the development program, preliminary designs of the LRASM-A and the LRASM-B variants were successfully completed by Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control. DARPA determined that it provided sufficient confidence in the 2 designs to support further investment for flight testing.

Phase 2 of the development program will continue the development of both missiles and culminate in flight demonstrations of tactically relevant prototypes of both missiles, including a common sensor system from BAE Systems. A series of tests will cover key subsystems, including propulsion, sensors, and mission execution software. Detailed designs, analytical assessments and developmental test results will culminate in critical design reviews (CDR), ensuring that each design is ready to continue on to flight demonstration. LRASM-A will execute 2 air-launched demonstrations, while LRASM-B will complete 4 shipboard Vertical Launch System (VLS) demonstrations.


This is a DARPA program, which means the path from development to fielding isn’t the same as a Navy System Development & Demonstration program. If DARPA is successful, it will be up to the Navy and/or Air Force to adopt LRASM, provide it with a budget, and take the missiles into production through the formal system development and manufacturing readiness process.
That hand-off process has been perilous in the past. It was nearly the end of America’s efforts to develop stealthy, fighter-class UAVs, for instance. DARPA J-UCAS problem was dropped at handoff, and seemed destined to be a major fumble. After a pause, the Navy recovered the initiative, using Northrop Grumman’s X-47B design in its funded N-UCAS program, and Boeing decided to privately develop its X-45 as the Phantom Ray. A US Navy filled with very high cost ship designs, and a looming fighter shortage on its carriers, may well decide to give missiles short shrift – even if they’re badly needed.

Rick Edwards, VP of Tactical Missiles and Combat Maneuver Systems at Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control, hopes that isn’t the case:

“Both of our LRASM solutions will deliver extraordinary range, willful penetration of ship self defense systems and precise lethality in denied combat environments…. The maturity of these weapons and technologies allows near term transition to Navy magazines at an affordable price. These are low risk, practical options…”

His firm will need to prove that – and also hope for well-placed champion in the Pentagon. Firms like Boeing, which holds the current Harpoon contract, and has created a stealthier Harpoon alternative in the AGM-84K SLAM-ER, can be expected to contest and compete after DARPA hands LRASM off. Indeed, the US Navy launched production of Boeing’s SLAM-ER following its pullout from the original JASSM program. Raytheon, with its ramjet and sensor expertise, and work on Navy air-launched projects like the stealthy JSOW-ER, may also have something to say, and ATK’s propulsion and missile expertise could make them a factor.

 

[Thorough Pro]

LRASM may pose a limited threat to the surface fleet but still there is no threat orcredible counter to US sub-surface attack vessels, two of which can carry more nuke power than any of the other n powers whole nuke stock except Russia.