US Navy ASM capabilities

[AlmightyTallest]

That's one of the test missiles, so it also doesn't have all of its coatings, or even sensors. You'll notice the screws and other fasteners showing on the missile body. The production model would be coated at least thick enough in grey to match the operational JASSM photos I posted earlier, where you can't see any seams or bolts that would cause extra radar reflections.

As far as fragile, it's in the eye of the beholder I guess, Anti-Ship missiles from any country are very complex weapons that require careful handling because of delicate internal components, but it's no different than other ordinance that is intended to get to the target and explode violently. It's also physically small.

The body is most likely made from advanced composites as alluded to here: http://www.exelisinc.com/news/pressreleases/Pages/ITT-Exelis-receives-composite-structures-contract-for-the-Lockheed-Martin-Joint-Air-to-Surface-Standoff-Missile-(JASSM%C2%AE)-.aspx

ITT Exelis (NYSE: XLS) received a contract in excess of $10 million for Lot 10 production of composite missile bodies and structures for the baseline and extended-range versions of Lockheed Martin’s Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile (JASSM).

Exelis will use its composite fabrication expertise in braiding, resin transfer mold and vacuum-assisted resin transfer molding to produce the complex structures. The combination of these processes provides automated, low-cost and high-quality structural parts. Exelis has built more than 1,500 missile bodies and structures in support of the JASSM program.

“We have an established relationship with Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control that dates back to the inception of the JASSM program,” said Mike Blair, vice president and general manager of Exelis Aerostructures business. “This contract utilizes our breadth of composite solutions and extends our application of innovative process technologies to create greater value for our customer.”

This is scary, because it means the entire body is probably radar absorbant advanced composites, it only has to be structurally sound enough for the missile to launch from a VLS and follow it's flight profile in turbulence while high subsonic. This also means the body is probably very light as not much metals would be used.

Nice photos btw NakedWeasel

Looks like Lockheed is setting up for LRASM production:

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/agm-158-jassm-lockheeds-family-of-stealthy-cruise-missiles-014343/

Feb 27/14: Industrial. Lockheed Martin breaks ground on a 62,000 square foot annex to its Pike County Operations’ Long Range Strike Systems cruise missile production facility in Troy, AL. When it’s complete, the facility will have expanded its existing space by 67%. The annex is supposed to be done by Q1 2015.

The Pike County facility builds JASSM missiles, and also produces test missiles for the Long Range Anti-Ship Missile (LRASM) development program. While there is foreign interest in JASSM, an expansion of this magnitude suggests that the firm expects LRASM/OASuW to become a program in its own right. Sources: Lockheed Martin, “Lockheed Martin Breaks Ground on New Cruise Missile Annex at Award Winning Facility in Alabama”.

[AlmightyTallest]

Apparently, the JASSM body is entirely advanced matrix carbon fibre composites..

http://www.compositesworld.com/articles/autoclave-quality-outside-the-autoclave

EDO Fiber Innovations (Walpole, Mass.) recently combined VARTM and automated braid preforming to manufacture the fuselage of the Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile (JASSM). Designed and fabricated for prime contractor Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control (Orlando, Fla.), the 4.3-m/14-ft long missile body with 61-cm/2-ft wide trapezoidal cross-section is VARTM'd in three pieces, but begins as a one-piece, net-shape preform.

Preform fabrication begins with braiding of the missile case's inner skin. Control of fiber volume in the preform is critical to achieving "autoclave quality" in this structure, notes EDO Fiber Innovations general manager Garrett Sharpless. "To achieve high fiber volume in braiding," he explains, "you have to be certain the fiber tows are placed in close proximity to one another. We achieve that by directly braiding over a mandrel to control the architecture in the braided structure." Braiding must be performed at relatively high tension to compact the preform on the mandrel, but also must be done in a manner that avoids abrading or breaking the fibers — especially challenging given the missile's unusual shape. Sharpless reports the resulting net-shape preform requires minimal debulking (on the order of 2 percent) once the preform is in the mold.

And if it falls under the "Baked carbon fiber matrix as discussed here: http://books.google.com/books?id=qZlrReU-cMkC&pg=PT42&lpg=PT42&dq=Carbon+composite+stealth+missile&source=bl&ots=Nsc_fHYcTd&sig=1ri8UR-AbZBd6iwYg4eWN-aJks0&hl=en&sa=X&ei=p_MqU5KmIYyw0QGW3IDgCw&ved=0CEgQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=Carbon%20composite%20stealth%20missile&f=false

The entire body is essentially a Radar Absorbant material, with angles added into it to deflect any leftover energy away from the emitting radar.

The more I read into this thing, the more respect I'm having for it's design.

I highly recommend reading the book above if your really interested in how stealth works on various levels, I have the hard copy version myself and it greatly increased my understanding of the subject.

[mikeCK]

Well whatever they use, they better step on it. I would hate to be the F-18 pilot tasked with attacking an enemy air defense cruiser loaded with SAMs with my 2 harpoon missiles

[NakedWeasel]

ORIGINAL: mikeCK

Well whatever they use, they better step on it. I would hate to be the F-18 pilot tasked with attacking an enemy air defense cruiser loaded with SAMs with my 2 harpoon missiles

Depending on the ship in question, two Harpoons can do a lot of damage. Versus the Slava, and Kirov-class ships, I have found that it requires a combination of weapons to get it done. Usually, this is: 16-24 HARMs/AARGMs, followed by 12-24 Harpoons/SLAM-ER. And then 12-24 JSOW (BROACH), JASSM, Walleye, SBU-64s, SPICE, etc. If those ships are heavily defended by escorts, and AAW AC, double it.

[AlmightyTallest]

Yea, the thing is getting at least two harpoons into the target. Most effecient way I devised was using up to 4 EA-18G's set up with short range 5 OECM pods and 2 Harms, in support of 8 F-18 Harm shooters with 4 Harms each and 4 more F-18 ITALD decoy launchers, with 4 decoys per plane, with another 8 F-18's with 4 Harpoons apiece vs. an enemy task force.

With the offensive jamming and Harms, you can still get within range of rather dangerous anti-air systems to fire the Harpoons. Keep the Harpoon shooters at low altitude, Offensive jammers at high altitude, Harm shooters at High altitude, same with the ITALD decoy shooters and try to time it so the Harpoons come in at the same time as the ITALD's and Harms [:)] And make sure that they and your harpoons, and Offensive jamming assets are along the same line of attack when it all goes down. You will overwhelm their defensive capabilities, make sure to turn on the EA-18's Communications jammer, this will help break the communication to some missile systems.

Give it a try, it's neat. [;)]

[mikeCK]

ORIGINAL: NakedWeasel

ORIGINAL: mikeCK

Well whatever they use, they better step on it. I would hate to be the F-18 pilot tasked with attacking an enemy air defense cruiser loaded with SAMs with my 2 harpoon missiles

Depending on the ship in question, two Harpoons can do a lot of damage. Versus the Slava, and Kirov-class ships, I have found that it requires a combination of weapons to get it done. Usually, this is: 16-24 HARMs/AARGMs, followed by 12-24 Harpoons/SLAM-ER. And then 12-24 JSOW (BROACH), JASSM, Walleye, SBU-64s, SPICE, etc. If those ships are heavily defended by escorts, and AAW AC, double it.

It's not the damage that concerns me...it's the lack if range. You have to get fairly close for a "modern ASM". Too close for modern weaponry. Especially if your a ship firing on another.

[AlmightyTallest]

You have a point mikeCK, the range is pretty paltry compared to other anti ship missiles. I don't know if it's modeled in this sim, but in other sims I used to be able to select the terminal maneuver for my harpoons from the F-18.

For example, I could set 2 of the Harpoons to go in straight into the target, and the 2 others to do a terminal pop up and dive onto the enemy ship. This greatly complicates the ship's problems of deciding which missiles are going straight in and which would do a pop up and dive maneuver. Add into the chaos Offensive ECM and decoys and it was an effective strategy.

Info about the pop up maneuver is here: http://books.google.com/books?id=4S3h8j_NEmkC&pg=PA553&lpg=PA553&dq=Harpoon+terminal+pop+up&source=bl&ots=hI_vMPYX6-&sig=6gdmdUC4Y1J5SbHeAVqXNOwLD6E&hl=en&sa=X&ei=c1AsU6HXBOGyyAHz2YD4BQ&ved=0CDcQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=Harpoon%20terminal%20pop%20up&f=false

Also has interesting info about certain Harpoon version with intermittent radar seekers, doing dog leg waypoints toward their targets, selectable search patterns. SWG-1A fire control allowing several Harpoons to arrive simultaneously from different directions, that's the 1984 version.

As far as the warhead, it looks like it would hurt if you got hit. The video below is Boeing's 40th annivery of the Harpoon, and has quite a few impact videos on large and small surface ships, and S-300 mock up sites.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-HSszSESmB0

[NakedWeasel]

My only answer to the Harpoon's admittedly paltry range issue, is the use of HARMs and AARGM's to saturate and badly damage the surface ship's air defense network. Once the major AD radar is shut down, the Harpoons and SLAM-ER's are not so short-legged, and the 500lb warheads they carry going off in the cap ship's guts will definitely get the job done.

It's a fairly classic tactic.

[poaw]

ORIGINAL: NakedWeasel

My only answer to the Harpoon's admittedly paltry range issue, is the use of HARMs and AARGM's to saturate and badly damage the surface ship's air defense network. Once the major AD radar is shut down, the Harpoons and SLAM-ER's are not so short-legged, and the 500lb warheads they carry going off in the cap ship's guts will definitely get the job done.

It's a fairly classic tactic.

That doesn't work in Command. The missiles seem to hit the "ship" as a whole with damage applied to subsystems randomly in the same way it does for any other weapon. When it works, it's pure serendipity.

I prefer to use TALDs instead as most aircraft can carry more decoys than actual ASM missiles and instead force the air defenses into wasting shots by sending in widely spaced decoys, as each decoy will remove 2 missiles at a minimum (if they're not in range to reacquire another decoy with the second shot) and simply brute force my way through to critical targets that way. It's also useful for running down the missile counts on hostile fighter sweeps to defeat their forces in detail when half of them go winchester and RTB.

[NakedWeasel]

I really have to disagree with the statement that ARM's in the game do not work as they would IRL. I constantly watch a dozen or so ARM's leave a large warship thoroughly wrecked above the waterline, even air-bursts have a tendency to damage or destroy mounts as well as sensors. Direct impacts will sink smaller ships of course, but the larger destroyers and cruisers are frequently left blinded and toothless after 20 or so HARM's do their thing. That isn't to say that TALDs and brute force is not a faster means of destroying key HVTs- I've done it as well. The reasons I prefer the HARM's versus TALDs, is 1. It takes just as many if not more SAM's to counter a HARM strike. High speed makes them hard targets, so I see the enemy frequently use 4-6 SAMs per HARM. And 2; if they fail to shoot down the HARM's, they can wreak catastrophic damage to the intended target.

But basically, we're both right. Combining TALDs AND HARMs is the best way to ensure a kill. I'm just waiting for DB updates to the TALDs that will make them usable for the AI.

[poaw]

I was only saying they don't work against ships the way they would IRL or on ground based SAMs in game. The ships are just a pool of HP with an emitter attached and the damage is assigned to random components outside the skin of the ship. I didn't bother testing the ground-based SAMs to see if it does the same thing or not (with the smaller pool of HP accounting for the difference in my anecdotal experiences), but 16 HARMs against the USS Iowa resulted in more 5" turrets knocked out than radars.

[mikmykWS]

ORIGINAL: poaw

I was only saying they don't work against ships the way they would IRL or on ground based SAMs in game. The ships are just a pool of HP with an emitter attached and the damage is assigned to random components outside the skin of the ship. I didn't bother testing the ground-based SAMs to see if it does the same thing or not (with the smaller pool of HP accounting for the difference in my anecdotal experiences), but 16 HARMs against the USS Iowa resulted in more 5" turrets knocked out than radars.

We'll take a look. Did you post this in troubleshooting at any point?

Thanks!

Mike

[VFA41_Lion]

ORIGINAL: poaw

I was only saying they don't work against ships the way they would IRL or on ground based SAMs in game. The ships are just a pool of HP with an emitter attached and the damage is assigned to random components outside the skin of the ship. I didn't bother testing the ground-based SAMs to see if it does the same thing or not (with the smaller pool of HP accounting for the difference in my anecdotal experiences), but 16 HARMs against the USS Iowa resulted in more 5" turrets knocked out than radars.

???

I just tested your parameters and 16 HARMs knocked out on the '91 Iowa:

AN/SPS-67(V)1
LN-66LP
AN/SLQ-32(V)3 [ESM]
3/4 of the CIWS radars

additionally it damaged:

AN/SPS-49(V)5 NTU
mk13 weapon director x 2
AN/SLQ-32(V)3 [ECM]

the only guns straight up operational are
CIWS x 3
One of the big turrets
and a variety of launchers.


Seems to me the anti-radiation missiles are doing their jobs.

[poaw]

ORIGINAL: mikmyk

ORIGINAL: poaw

I was only saying they don't work against ships the way they would IRL or on ground based SAMs in game. The ships are just a pool of HP with an emitter attached and the damage is assigned to random components outside the skin of the ship. I didn't bother testing the ground-based SAMs to see if it does the same thing or not (with the smaller pool of HP accounting for the difference in my anecdotal experiences), but 16 HARMs against the USS Iowa resulted in more 5" turrets knocked out than radars.

We'll take a look. Did you post this in troubleshooting at any point?

Thanks!

Mike

Oh no I didn't post it in troubleshooting because I figured it was a conscious design decision to simplify damage modeling as opposed to a bug or anything and ignored it. As long as the engines and rudder aren't being knocked out by airbursting HARMs it would never come up for most modern ships.

I wasn't saying they DIDN'T knock out radars, only that they don't seem to prioritize doing damage to any particular component once they hit the ship or even prioritizing the much more powerful emitters. Making the use of ARM against ships somewhat less effective than it would be in real life.

[jazjar]

LRASM looks great. Since the supersonic version has been cancelled, how would a salvo of these fare against a modern russian/chinese fleet w/ air defense destroyers w/ double digit SAMs? I'd imagine that the infrared seeker would be the only seeker used.

[NakedWeasel]

Well that is the billion dollar question, isn't it? Just how effective is Chinese and Russian radar versus a quite small, very low flying, very stealthy, fairly high sub-sonic, missile utilizing an entirely passive sensor suite, that may also be capable of providing it's own ECM/ECCM, and can intelligently, autonomously, and dynamically approach it's target on a path that makes it difficult to detect and intercept?

Given the option of facing 1 dozen LRASM's or a dozen Shipwrecks, or Kingfish ASM's, I'd probably prefer to take my chances against the Russian missiles. Much more likely that I'm going to be able to detect them far enough away from my ship to be able to shoot them down. I think LRASM would suddenly materialize moments before impact, if at all- and that 1000 warhead would make a terrible noise going off deep in the interior of it's target.

[AlmightyTallest]

Guys, you have to try the LRASM in 1.03 with the latest data base. They are fantastic against even the most advanced Chinese Aegis type ships like the Type 052D.

You can have the task group fire them from VLS, use 4 LRASM's per ship, and use aircraft to fly escort with them to the target. If you want to use offensive jamming, Harm shooters, decoys etc. you won't need many LRASM's.

I can see why the Navy can't wait for them.

[Dimitris]

ORIGINAL: poaw

ORIGINAL: mikmyk

ORIGINAL: poaw

I was only saying they don't work against ships the way they would IRL or on ground based SAMs in game. The ships are just a pool of HP with an emitter attached and the damage is assigned to random components outside the skin of the ship. I didn't bother testing the ground-based SAMs to see if it does the same thing or not (with the smaller pool of HP accounting for the difference in my anecdotal experiences), but 16 HARMs against the USS Iowa resulted in more 5" turrets knocked out than radars.

We'll take a look. Did you post this in troubleshooting at any point?

Thanks!

Mike

Oh no I didn't post it in troubleshooting because I figured it was a conscious design decision to simplify damage modeling as opposed to a bug or anything and ignored it. As long as the engines and rudder aren't being knocked out by airbursting HARMs it would never come up for most modern ships.

I wasn't saying they DIDN'T knock out radars, only that they don't seem to prioritize doing damage to any particular component once they hit the ship or even prioritizing the much more powerful emitters. Making the use of ARM against ships somewhat less effective than it would be in real life.

Thanks! There was indeed an issue with this, it was not by design. Fixed in Build 568.

[Juramentado]

The issue isn't so much that a Harpoon or TASM replacement is lacking; it's more that modern offensive operations no longer envision traditional exchange of organic-fire salvos between Fleets as an exclusive engagement. The US Navy would never operate forward without significant aviation elements - that may be carrier power alone, or combined with Air Force elements. This theoretically counters the advantages of an enemy configured for A2AD using ASCMs. Salvos of ASMs are only part of the overall equation to degrade or remove the enemy's combat power.

Another part of that misconception is doctrinal. Up until the mid-90s, the USN was configured to fight a defensive war. When you look at "Navy Crosses Waiting To Happen" like the Kirov, basically a floating nuc-powered SAM magazine with an addiction to ASCMs, even the most liberal left-wing hippie would concur it's the poster child for the term "First Strike Weapon." [:D] It was designed to shoot everything off, first, fast and furious - and what it hit was guaranteed not to get back up, ever. Conventional TASM or TLAM was never in concentrations aboard US platforms to even come close to that. That's why Harpoon was such a bolt-on because it was - Teledyne even got a "no-bid" contract to deploy it in it's infancy, we were in that much of a hurry to give some interim capability to our ships.

Then there's this other really annoying trend that irks me as a naval observer - there's a perceived missile gap because everyone is focused on independent steaming, which most navies avoid in wartime. We keep thinking as the general public that platforms like LCS are helpless in Phase 0 and Phase 1, but no one bothers to think about what that means. "Shaping Operations" are exactly that, the prelude to the dance - non-kinetic activities designed to get the opponent to reveal their capabilities unintentionally, get a good look at their TTP, reassure and train our allies, force them away from going to Phase 2 because yes, shooting at even a supposedly dinky LCS might bring the rest of the Navy down on them. Believe it or not, RAM is extremely effective at point defense, and the latest blocks of it and Phalanx now allow anti-ship (yep, small boat but still valid ASuW) and anti-helo.

Granted Phase 0 and 1 are NOT sexy, but that is actually the bulk of current operations today. As part of the Maritime Security thinktank I support, we've recently kicked around the reality of Brahmos. India is planning on selling it to both India and Venezuela. Talk about serving both sides of the aisle. But yet, the general unclassified discussion is that Brahmos is nice, but very vulnerable to soft-kill. Speaking of which, that's the part that's the hardest to model anywhere. If there's anything that's more sensitive than encryption codes, it's the effectiveness of Electronic Warfare. These first strike weapons from a PowerPoint perspective are indeed impressive. The question is, what's guiding the warhead? And how good is it really?

Finally, we come to the really fuzzy part of anti-ship weaponry which starts to intrude into Strategy Territory (I can hear the yawns already), but bear with me for a second. In the Realpolitik (hint hint for the Scenario Writers!), there's a big big difference in moving in a ballistic capable weapon like DF-21 into a theater of operations is VERY ESCALATORY versus some shore-fired ASCMs. You could have fun with changing postures this way. The reason being - no one's national intelligence systems are good enough to immediately distinguish whether a ballistic missile unit is conventional only or nuc-capable. And we know now, decades after the Cuban Missile Crisis, that the world really was one or two miscalculations away from a nuclear winter. It's the assumptions made by either side that result in miscalculations (he wouldn't do that, would he?) - it happens even in very basic Command Post exercises. While the US is contemplating Hypersonic Weapons as part of the Prompt Global Strike initiative (hold any target at risk and strike it in one hour, with an hour's notice), it's exactly that kind of capability that makes the other guy seek asymmetry, possibly with dirtier weapons. ASCMs already have this potential, with their regional range and high supersonic speeds.

[Kuroshio Apocal]

kk