This article first appeared in Aerospace Daily & Defense Report.
Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control has won one of two awards from the U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) to study and design a Long-Range Anti-Ship Missile (LRASM).
DARPA received nine proposals, and one more award is expected in the next 60 days, according to an agency official. Boeing, Raytheon and ATK also submitted proposals.
LRASM is an unconventional DARPA effort; the agency typically focuses on technology that is not readily in hand. However, the Navy requested DARPA’s help in fielding LRASM in response to a need to protect ships in the Pacific against a perceived threat from an exotic anti-ship system in development in China. The goal of the program is to develop a weapon that can quickly transition into operational use by the Navy. LRASM must be mated with the Navy’s Vertical Launch System, which is already installed on cruisers and destroyers in the fleet.
LRASM’s standoff range requirement is designed to allow U.S. Navy ships to engage targets well outside their striking range. The weapon must operate with reduced dependence on intelligence sources, datalinks and Global Positioning System guidance. The missile also must employ survivability techniques to penetrate air defenses once it is well into its flight.
“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,” said Rob McHenry, program manager in DARPA’s Tactical Technology Office. “Once it finds that target, then it has to be able to penetrate the air defenses. The standard of maritime integrated air defenses has risen dramatically over the past few years,” he said via a June podcast on the agency’s Web site.
The U.S. Navy is currently lacking a “credible” anti-ship capability. Today’s weapons rely heavily on proper intelligence preparation for a mission and offboard sensors or communications. LRASM is a “new level of capability organic to the weapon itself,” McHenry said.
To achieve survivability, the missile must also be capable of maneuvering; this could require some advances in propulsion technology.
Read the rest of this story, a cool piece on robot refeuling, some intel on the JSF and Dreamliner and a puffy piece on a MV-22 rescue from our friends at Aviation Week, exclusively on Military.com.
– Christian
I wonder: That “exotic anti-ship system in development in China” against which the L.R.A.S.M. will be employed, could that be the novel Chinese idea of fitting conventional warheads on I.C.B.M.s and then fire them against large surface ships? The text doesn’t specify it.
If so, I wonder how a L.R.A.S.M. (= clearly some sort of sea-to-sea-ammunition, not some Tomahawk-like sea-to-ground ammunition) can possibly defeat this threat (= the conventional anti-ship-I.C.B.M.), both in terms of flight range and in terms of locating that threat somewhere “at sea”…(?)
either way, the U.S. woefully needed a credible anti-ship capability for a long time.
Finaly it HAS been needed for a while. Weve been putting way to much on the idea that our carriers would be invincible.
Hell we’ve put antisub, antiship, ground support, etc, etc, hell just about everything you could think of onto the backs of carriers. Mean while a typical navy taskforce could be defeated by a bunch of cheap a$$ chinese missile boats.
Why not shift back to
Cheap fast frigate: designed to hunt subs, and to support anti piracy missions. (Something Like the LCS but cheaper…alot cheaper.…and can be built on mass.)
Destroyer: For now the current DDG fleet is OK. But in the future something ment for anti air/missile threats like those mentioned above. Weather it relies on something like the current SM-3 or a laser system what have you.
Crusier/Heavy Crusier: Ok a Cusier platform for long range engagments between surface combatants. These ships should be large and able to carry a signifigant amount of amunition. My idea is to get with the army find out how to use something like atacms.
Heavy crusier for direct on shore fire support. Again large heavily armed and armored. 8in or 155 (id go with 8 in considering a 155 cant even break a tanks armor but whatever works.) Again heavy armor. Its the 21 century if we cant make armor for a 600 to 700 foot naval vessel thats better than 1940’s were screwed. Anyways Good closein anti missile system maybe the phalanx system(and i mean good not 2 turrets but 4 at least as well as various others)
You could maybe make use of many of the same parts for the destroyers crusiers etc to save cost.
Aircraft carriers…well save that for later. They need more defenses and such etc.
Ok thats just some of the surface fleet im tired of typing and i have things need doin.
Tips. Forget stealth. ATM it is just to costly to try to make a stealth crusier thats good for anything to much money and design constraints.
Maybe shift to trimaridian or another design. Trimaridian definatly for the frigates.
All larger ships destroyer-carrier nucleur powered. Save a crap load of money in fuel maybe rethink different reactor designes.
anyways just some thoughts.
oh yea some atacms info:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/atacms.htm
bomb, sence we are talking ICBM it might be there worried about a chinese what have you sub popping up and launching one or more of these things at range. Or maybe a Battlecrusier like the russians have.….though the chinese one will probbly work better…though many crewmen will die from lead poisioning.
This missile reminds me of a Star Trek Voyager program that had the Enterprise trying to escape from an intelligent missile that, once launched, did whatever it took to get to the target.
It’s not interstellar travel in this case, but the same idea.…
It’s good to see the Navy getting a suitable anti-shipping missile after all of the emphasis we’ve placed on carrier aviation to kill naval assets. I’d go cheap and simple on this one, since it probably won’t even run a full generation before railguns usurp all surface combat roles.
Want to defeat an inbound RV from a MRBM or ICBM fired at a carrier battle group? The defense is called the “free electron laser” Speed of light weaponary makes a Mach 15 RV seem like granny driving to the flower shop.
Want to defeat an inbound RV from a MRBM or ICBM fired at a carrier battle group? The defense is called the “free electron laser” Speed of light weaponary makes a Mach 15 RV seem like granny driving to the flower shop.
Bomb, you need to think positive. Oh wait your not american are you. I guess you are then.
What are you german? british? french?