US Navy ASM capabilities

[NakedWeasel]

Hopefully, this adds to the discussion...

Boeing & Kongsberg Defense Systems Complete Joint Strike Missile Check on F/A-18 Super Hornet



http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.ph ... ew&id=1340

These JSM's are quite smallish, considering they are so much more capable than the Harpoon's they'll replace. I definitely think there is a place for a ship and sub launched version of the JSM on smaller vessels. While I am usually a big proponent of VLS, I think they could even allow the JSM's to be launched from the Harpoon launchers for vessels that can't be refitted for VLS.

[AlmightyTallest]

The paint scheme would even make it hard to detect visually. Certainly enough innovation here for the Russians and Chinese to sit up and take notice. Expect a Chinese version next week....

lol, copying these defense projects seems to be the pattern. There's some secrets with the paint scheme, info alludes to it which makes the whole system even more stealthy in the IR and radar regions, visible wavelenth the grey is effective as well in the haze near the ocean surface.

Online public info about the paint publicly is referenced here. https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=2d666c108252bf8f89e628fc2caaf380&tab=core&_cview=1

http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=9561
http://evangelidis.gr/embry/F35LO-ShortReport-HTML.htm

[...] On the F-35 several special materials are used, including Radar Absorbing Materials (RAM), Radar Absorbing Structure and Infrared (IR) Topcoat. Unlike the F-117, which was totally coated with 2,000 pounds of RAM, these materials are more selectively used on the JSF. Lockheed Martin developed paint-type RAM which is applied around the edges of doors and control surfaces. RAS is used on the body, wing and tail edges. For the application of this paint robots will be used, like the CASPER (Computer Aided Spray Paint Expelling Robot) system used for F-22 and the Have Glass II program used for painting 1,700 F-16s with RAM. Robots are essential because they can reach confined areas, as the inlet ducts, and can work without stepping on the aircraft.

These materials comprise ferromagnetic particles, embedded in a high-dielectric-constant polymer base. The dielectric material slows down the wave and the ferromagnetic particles absorb the energy. These coatings are also designed in a way that the small reflection from the front face of the absorber is cancelled by a residual reflection from the structure beneath it. This is not an easy procedure, and it makes RAM design much more tricky than most people believe.

JSF’s entire airframe is also painted with a camouflage topcoat that suppresses IR. [...]

International Defense Review (January 1, 2004) wrote:
[...] US and European aircraft manufacturers have used specially developed materials to reduce the RCS of basically non-stealthy aircraft for many years. Notable examples include the Have Glass and Have Glass II modifications to the F-16. [...]

danshistory.com wrote:
Have Glass is the code name for a series of RCS reduction measures for the F-16 fighter. Its primary aspect is the addition of an indium-tin-oxide layer to the gold tinted cockpit canopy. This is reflective to radar frequencies, while it may seem odd, adding a radar reflective coating actually reduces the plane's visibility to radar. An ordinary canopy would let radar signals straight through where they would strike the many edges and corners inside and bounce back strongly to the source, the reflective layer dissipates these signals instead. Overall, Have Glass reduces an F-16's RCS (radar-cross section) by some 15 percent.

Not too much of a stretch to enhance these cruise missiles using special top coats of the types of paint being described above. The U.S. has a lot of experience with stealth materials and coatings.

[AlmightyTallest]

I believe LRASM would have the 2 way datalink.

JASSM does as of 2006 apparently: http://www.spacewar.com/reports/LockMart_Develops_JASSM_Cruise_Missile_Weapon_Data_Link.html

Lockheed Martin received a U.S. Air Force task order totaling more than $32 million for the development of a Weapon Data Link (WDL) capability that will enable the extended-range JASSM system to engage relocatable and time-critical targets. The JASSM air-to-surface standoff missile system is the world's first stealthy conventional cruise missile.
"This WDL capability, in association with the extended range JASSM (JASSM-ER), gains major warfighter benefits," said Fred Schubert, Weapon Data Link program manager, Long Range Missile Systems Group at Eglin Air Force Base, FL. "JASSM-ER provides significant stand-off capability, which is enhanced with the WDL capability that will increase the flexibility of the weapon. Warfighters will have an increased ability to engage relocatable targets and provide time-critical strike."

The WDL will provide the JASSM-ER with two-way, secure, beyond-line-of-sight-communications capability with the Combined Air Operations Center (CAOC). The COAC may send target location updates and changes to the missile while it is in flight. The missile will report its position and status until impact. This communications link will provide the warfighter with an increased capability to engage relocatable and time-critical targets and is a key enabler of a future maritime interdiction capability in the missile.

The WDL system will use the standardized data link architecture for network-enabled weapons developed by a joint service Weapon Data Link Network (WDLN) Advanced Concept Technology Demonstration (ACTD) program. Lockheed Martin was a key participant in the WDLN ACTD whose primary purpose was to specify, design, implement and demonstrate standardized tactical weapons communications architecture. The JASSM-ER will be the first cruise missile to use the military's standardized data link architecture for network enabled weapons.

The U.S. Air Force and Lockheed Martin successfully demonstrated the WDL capability during flight test demonstrations conducted in November 2005. Lockheed Martin ACTD avionics configured with a beyond-line-of-sight-capable WDL transceiver was installed in a test aircraft. During the demonstration, the test aircraft communicated beyond-line-of-sight, weapon in-flight-tracking data and received retargeting data from a simulated CAOC.

A 2,000-pound class weapon with a dual-mode penetrator and blast fragmentation warhead, JASSM-ER will cruise autonomously in adverse weather, day or night, using a state-of-the-art infrared seeker in addition to the anti-jam GPS to find a specific aimpoint on the target. Its stealthy airframe makes it extremely difficult to defend against. The missile is planned for initial employment on the B-1B aircraft platform. Structural testing confirmed that the JASSM-ER missile design will be compatible with the B-2, B-52 and F-16 aircraft that currently employ JASSM. The extended range cruise missile has a range greater than 500 nautical miles.

source: Lockheed Martin

[NakedWeasel]

You know it's actually that "one-size, fits all" thing that worries me- those are the really game-changing, super innovative programs that seem to drag on the longest, and get shut down the most. Obviously those programs are most likely going to cause huge changes in the job market and defense industry as they replace legacy weapons programs that are already in production, or needing upgrades.

[AlmightyTallest]

The JSM is another interesting system.



You can see it has facets for the IR window that angle away in the front. It does have some stealthy aspects, other aspects point to more conventional missile designs. I like the idea that it can just home passively with IR, instead of giving any radar emitting ESM warning to it's target.

[AlmightyTallest]

You know it's actually that "one-size, fits all" thing that worries me- those are the really game-changing, super innovative programs that seem to drag on the longest

In a way, your right, just look how far back the JASSM was first conceived to when it was in service. They started working on JASSM in 1995, service date was 2009. With tons of problems, they even thought the project would be cancelled.

The advantage now is that all that testing has created a missile that's reliable, and now to minimize risk, they are simply taking the now proven air frame and weapon parts after all these years, and only adding in some new sensors, ecm, etc. to allow introduction into the fleet sooner. Essentially taking an Air Force project and turning it into a Navy one.

The goal is the same though, stealthy high subsonic missile with capability to destroy moving surface ships vs. moving land targets in a very high threat environment.

[AlmightyTallest]

Regarding active radar anti-ship missiles I came across this book:

http://books.google.com/books?id=K_T4M-nA6JYC&pg=PA301&lpg=PA301&dq=anti+ship+cruise+missile+with+LPI+radar&source=bl&ots=uPMyJvs6ZB&sig=uvjx5KBU5UfzMvOc1uqD47zbWAM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=l8kpU7WsConA0AHdqYHQCQ&ved=0CCYQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=anti%20ship%20cruise%20missile%20with%20LPI%20radar&f=false

Which makes you wonder if the LRASM might have a Low Probability of Intercept radar seeker.

[jdkbph]

ORIGINAL: severe7

I have a question about the USN doctrine of using subs against surface vessels. How fast are subs (generally) compared to surface ships?
My idea of a sub is of it being a slow and silent killer lurking in deep waters, but in a crisis situation could a pack of subs reach a an area as fast as a surface action group?
Are they built to go fast for extended time or just for dashes?

Well, yes and no. From an operational point of view, the ability of nuclear powered submarines to make long distance, high speed transits from area to area is, in effect, a "force multiplier". It allows the nuclear sub to patrol larger areas, and react to threats over greater distances, than would otherwise be possible with conventional powered subs. However, this capability, as far as I know, is never used tactically.

That means if a boat with no stand off capability is out of position when a target is detected (eg, the target is outside torpedo range, traveling at medium to high speed, and not closing) - there is no practical way for the submarine to engage.

JD

[severe7]

ORIGINAL: jdkbph

ORIGINAL: severe7

I have a question about the USN doctrine of using subs against surface vessels. How fast are subs (generally) compared to surface ships?
My idea of a sub is of it being a slow and silent killer lurking in deep waters, but in a crisis situation could a pack of subs reach a an area as fast as a surface action group?
Are they built to go fast for extended time or just for dashes?

Well, yes and no. From an operational point of view, the ability of nuclear powered submarines to make long distance, high speed transits from area to area is, in effect, a "force multiplier". It allows the nuclear sub to patrol larger areas, and react to threats over greater distances, than would otherwise be possible with conventional powered subs. However, this capability, as far as I know, is never used tactically.

That means if a boat with no stand off capability is out of position when a target is detected (eg, the target is outside torpedo range, traveling at medium to high speed, and not closing) - there is no practical way for the submarine to engage.

JD

So for submarines the rule is always to "be where it happens and be there first"?

Does anyone know if there has been any feasible ideas about a hybrid ship similar to the aircraft launching subs in WW2? Combining the stealth and endurance of a sub with a long strike range seems like a good idea, especially against enemies with advanced ASW equipment.

[Apocal]

ORIGINAL: NakedWeasel

That's kind of oversimplifying the issue. Carriers can't be everywhere. If we truly expect our fleet ships and subs to be multi-role, then they should have built light, medium or heavy weapons and launchers for all four combat roles: AAW, ASW, land strike, AND ASuW. I do mean on all of the combatant vessels- auxiliaries and other support need not apply.

Aircraft can't be everywhere, but they can be everywhere we figure we'll need to kill ships. So that's where the development money for anti-ship capability went for the two decades after the cold war, in the form of air-launched Harpoon upgrades into SLAM-ER.

I was also in favor of arming the carriers with extensive VLS batteries as well. They could have doubled or tripled the battle group's TLAM capability, freed up some of the VLS tubes in the escorts to be better... escorts, and allowed the carries to be able to defend themselves and their escorts as well.

The USN already has more VLS tubes than it has missiles (all types) to fill them.

[jdkbph]

ORIGINAL: severe7

Does anyone know if there has been any feasible ideas about a hybrid ship similar to the aircraft launching subs in WW2? Combining the stealth and endurance of a sub with a long strike range seems like a good idea, especially against enemies with advanced ASW equipment.

Yeah the Soviet/Russian Charlie and Oscar class boats are pretty much that in an ASuW role, and I guess the best example of that in an land attack role would be the Ohio SSGNs.

JD

[jdkbph]

ORIGINAL: severe7

So for submarines the rule is always to "be where it happens and be there first"?

For USN boats without stand-off ASuW... pretty much, yeah.

In the old days (eg, WWII) when ranges were relatively compressed (detection, engagement, etc) the tactic in such a scenario was to do an "end around", where the boat would surface and run at high speed, always keeping just on the edge of the sub to target detection range, position itself in front of and along the target's base course, then submerge and wait.

I wouldn't want to try that in the modern era (not surfacing of course... just running at high speed in order to get in front of the target) unless somehow I could be damned sure there were no enemy ASW assets anywhere near me, my target, or the path I planned to take.

JD

[mikmykWS]

When the Tomahawk gets full moving-target ASuW capability and/or LRASM is implemented US warships will do well at land and sea missile strikes. This is on top of having significant air and subsurface strike assets as well. So pound for pound the US force will still have more capabilities than most of their potential adversaries given they can direct those fires well (sensor dominance etc). The balance only really changes once an adversary can do the same and/or can blind the US strike complex from putting a missile salvo on target.

Mike

[NakedWeasel]

ORIGINAL: severe7

ORIGINAL: jdkbph

ORIGINAL: severe7

I have a question about the USN doctrine of using subs against surface vessels. How fast are subs (generally) compared to surface ships?
My idea of a sub is of it being a slow and silent killer lurking in deep waters, but in a crisis situation could a pack of subs reach a an area as fast as a surface action group?
Are they built to go fast for extended time or just for dashes?

Well, yes and no. From an operational point of view, the ability of nuclear powered submarines to make long distance, high speed transits from area to area is, in effect, a "force multiplier". It allows the nuclear sub to patrol larger areas, and react to threats over greater distances, than would otherwise be possible with conventional powered subs. However, this capability, as far as I know, is never used tactically.

That means if a boat with no stand off capability is out of position when a target is detected (eg, the target is outside torpedo range, traveling at medium to high speed, and not closing) - there is no practical way for the submarine to engage.

JD

So for submarines the rule is always to "be where it happens and be there first"?

Does anyone know if there has been any feasible ideas about a hybrid ship similar to the aircraft launching subs in WW2? Combining the stealth and endurance of a sub with a long strike range seems like a good idea, especially against enemies with advanced ASW equipment.

I've heard it theorized many times, that in the future, the only way for ships to remain survivable would be to make them submersible or at least semi-submersible. Can that be done with an aircraft carrier? Anything is possible- but then again anything might also be cost-prohibitive. Maybe a smaller carrier, capable of launching/recovering VTOL UCAVs would be the first step on that road map. It wouldn't surprise me, given that weapons technology is becoming more about maximizing effect and efficiency in a minimal and/or miniaturized package. Do more with less. Fight smarter, not harder.

[NakedWeasel]

ORIGINAL: Apocal

ORIGINAL: NakedWeasel

That's kind of oversimplifying the issue. Carriers can't be everywhere. If we truly expect our fleet ships and subs to be multi-role, then they should have built light, medium or heavy weapons and launchers for all four combat roles: AAW, ASW, land strike, AND ASuW. I do mean on all of the combatant vessels- auxiliaries and other support need not apply.

Aircraft can't be everywhere, but they can be everywhere we figure we'll need to kill ships. So that's where the development money for anti-ship capability went for the two decades after the cold war, in the form of air-launched Harpoon upgrades into SLAM-ER.

I was also in favor of arming the carriers with extensive VLS batteries as well. They could have doubled or tripled the battle group's TLAM capability, freed up some of the VLS tubes in the escorts to be better... escorts, and allowed the carries to be able to defend themselves and their escorts as well.

The USN already has more VLS tubes than it has missiles (all types) to fill them.

Heh, then as I see it, the only logical answer is to fill them. A good place to start would be with a state of the art version of the "Affordable Weapon System". http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2006fuze/hubert.pdf

I can think of a bunch of uses for this thing, from target practice, to recon, to SEAD/DEAD decoys, etc. It would be even more affordable, if they cannibalized the Harpoons, and used their guts for the AWS's essential components. Powerplant, control actuators, seeker head/software, warhead- it's all combat proven/low risk. You could fill a lot of VLS tubes real fast with those things. Use 'em on pirates, and fireworks for the Fourth of July. Wayne's World, Waynes world,! party time! Excellent! whooo wooo hooo!

[VFA41_Lion]

So its a waiting game, is what everyone's saying. Gotcha. [:D]

[cwemyss]

ORIGINAL: AlmightyTallest

The JSM is another interesting system.



You can see it has facets for the IR window that angle away in the front. It does have some stealthy aspects, other aspects point to more conventional missile designs. I like the idea that it can just home passively with IR, instead of giving any radar emitting ESM warning to it's target.

Sized for internal carriage in an F-35 weapons bay, too. Trying to remember, but I think JASSM/LRASM is too big to carry inside.

[AlmightyTallest]

Yea, your right, the LRASM is a bigger missile, so depending on the mission both can be attractive options for anti shipping work. Just depends how you want to do it.

I came across this years ago.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iNSHSBziyOo

March 2003. Apparently Tomahawk cruise missiles can be arranged to fly in nice formations.

The difference here is instead of having long trains of missiles incoming along a single vector, I think it would be neat if we could put them in formations like this. Having a line of them coming in at a target, or splitting up at some waypoint to come in from various directions would probably increase the chance of them getting through.

[NakedWeasel]

More LRASM pics... this thing is so cool. [8D]



knock knock!

Who's there?

America, Mother F**ker! [:D]

[dillonkbase]

It looks more fragile than I would expect...