US Navy ASM capabilities

[VFA41_Lion]

Is it just me thats baffled by the painful lack of anti-ship missiles within the US Navy? It seems as though nearly every vessel is configured for land strikes and air defense. And too bad they phased out the TASSM in 1991. <_<

[Dimitris]

Post-WW2 USN doctrine has long relied on aircraft and especially subs (using torps) to take on major surface threats. Harpoon & TASM were adopted only on the condition that they did not change this policy, and ambitious & promising systems challenging this assumption were killed off.

(As an example, the "classic" Mk141 tube launcher for Harpoon was deliberately designed to be easy to add to any existing ship without major work. Why? Because if it took a lot of money to do it, it would have necessitated a change in this doctrine. Likewise Perseus/STAM, a heavy ASCM [much more similar to Soviet carrier-killers than TASM] that would have required a dedicated submarine class to deliver it, was cancelled. Why? Because if you pour serious money (new missile + new nuclear sub) on a missile solution, you're signalling to everyone a policy shift in favor of the missile. So the _much_ cheaper Harpoon and TASM were deployed instead.)

LRASM is supposed to fill this void in the near future. We'll see.

[Apocal]

ORIGINAL: VFA41_Lion

Is it just me thats baffled by the painful lack of anti-ship missiles within the US Navy? It seems as though nearly every vessel is configured for land strikes and air defense. And too bad they phased out the TASSM in 1991. <_<

Might have something to do with the 600+ strike aircraft...

[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. 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 ships were/are large enough for 4-6 Mk41 VLS arrays around the edge of the flight deck, and wouldn't have impacted flight ops.

At 0300 when there's a major kerfuffle, and the POTUS picks up the phone to send the nearest flattop into harm's way, he should sending an iron fist and a truly deliberate threat with every carrier.

And yeah, I know about the strike capabilities of the bird farm.

Anyway, I agree with the OP- as do many others. The USNs ASM capability is sorely lacking.

[VFA41_Lion]

There's also the new Advanced Gun System with the LRLAP. Not as long range as a missile, but I figure that shell has to be harder to intercept.

[NakedWeasel]

Not in CMANO, vs Russian SAMs. [:D] Russia strong!!!!!11

[Dimitris]

If the Russian SAMs in question are double-digits it makes sense, since pretty much everything post-1980 was designed with PGMs in mind. If they're older ones then there's an issue.

[Rob322]

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. 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 ships were/are large enough for 4-6 Mk41 VLS arrays around the edge of the flight deck, and wouldn't have impacted flight ops.

At 0300 when there's a major kerfuffle, and the POTUS picks up the phone to send the nearest flattop into harm's way, he should sending an iron fist and a truly deliberate threat with every carrier.

And yeah, I know about the strike capabilities of the bird farm.

Anyway, I agree with the OP- as do many others. The USNs ASM capability is sorely lacking.

That's why, at one point, we had 15 CVs running around. A lot of our doctrine came out of WW2 where the carrier was king and surface battles were regarded as a relict of an old era. Those experiences carried forward into the Cold War and the admirals, many of whom came out of carriers, continued that line of thinking.

Besides, if we'd only paid to run 10 carriers and invested the rest in anti ship missiles then the house rep for Newport News would scream about the job loss in his district. So would all the other reps who might worry that the cut to CVs would mean a corresponding cut to escorts. Heck, if we start down that road who knows where that will lead? The civilians might give that money to the Army, the Air Force or the Marines! So we design a missile, Harpoon, that's at best adequate and that's never so capable that someone questions the need for a large CV force.

[AdmiralSteve]

A recent article that may answer some questions. Near the end of the article were these two paragraphs;

It is because of growing recognition that the Navy may once again find its dominance at sea contested that the service is exploring new weapons such as the LRASM. The weapons would give the Navy’s surface warships a decent punch against other warships that currently is lacking.

However, there is a solid argument to be made that the best way to kill an enemy surface combatant is to leash submarines and aircraft against those threats. Nonetheless, it can’t hurt to have a solid anti-ship capability on board the Navy’s surface fleet.

As I understand after 1991 and the Cold War the inventory of RGM/UGM-109B Tomahawk Anti Ship Missiles (TASM) were converted to "C" variants and the AGM-84H/K SLAM-ER was probably a stop gap until a replacement for the Harpoon was designed.

http://news.usni.org/2013/06/06/u-s-nav ... hip-combat

[Sakai007]

Loved that CGI demonstration but can't help think that's a bit optimistic. Three LRASM missiles launched for three hits against two DDG's.

[AlmightyTallest]

You can take the advertisement with a grain of salt, but what's advertised to a potential customer is a sea skimmer that is stealthy, both in shape, and coatings with multiple terminal seekers, both Radar and passive thermal that can cruise at medium altitude and skirt around detected radar emissions on it's own to the programmed target, dropping to sea skimming level once it's passively detected the active emissions of it's intended target, all provided by satellite intel. Perhaps the video didn't show an EA-18G providing jamming or MALD decoys, but you can conceivably make these missiles have that kind of survivability if you want to support them on their way to their targets.

If the missile is pretty stealthy, then some point defenses wouldn't pick up on it until much closer in, and the missile being able to pick out the bridge of a ship and maneuver to hit that is a rather frightening prospect, as well the onboard ECM it seems to have that it uses to close with the target.

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

[mikeCK]

I have brought this exact point up previously in this forum. Hopefully the navy's new anti-ship missile: the LRASM will be deployed in 2015 but they sure seem to rely on the aged harpoon missile for a long time. I mean, 600+ aircraft is great assuming you have an aircraft carrier but there are destroyers that are deployed by themselves or in task forces that don't have carriers. Plus if you were attacking an enemy task force that has land-based air defense cover you're going to have a hard time using those aircraft. you have to have anti-ship missile capability to attack over the horizon and harpoon is pitiful at this point. The U.S. Navy spent far too much time energy and money investing in land attack capabilities and anti-air defense and forgot about it's true mission clearing the ocean of enemy navies.

I still can't believe that the most powerful navy in the world relies on separately attached box launchers firing an underpowered missile produced in the 1970s that is neither hypersonic nor long ranged. Better hope the long-range anti-ship missile is fielded before anything happens where we need something like that.

In addition what is a submarine supposed to do against a task force? sure you can fire torpedoes which aren't particularly long ranged, take a long time to get to target and can be evaded. Do you seriously expect our small submarine force to take on these task forces with Mark 48 torpedoes while the enemy is conducting anti-submarine warfare operations??? I mean after you fire your first volley of torpedoes you have to turn and run you can't keep firing. how much damage do you expect them to accomplishment with 4-6 torpedoes? Other than that all I have once again our harpoon missiles.

I hate to think what would happened if a task force consisting of a destroyer and several support ships came upon an enemy group and engaged in combat. without an aircraft carrier present and with only one submarine I'm not sure exactly how they would destroy the enemy.... The Navy seems to think that no matter where combat occurs, an aircraft carrier will always be there… We only have 9 to 10 in any given time three or four getting service or in port.

[NakedWeasel]

Yeah, Mike, it's a big crap sammich and we've been eating it for far too long. At least there is a concept and a possible solution for both a surface (or even subsurface ) -launched anti-ship missile, that may also be air-launched from bombers, as well as a potential lighter weight weight ASM that can be launched from fighters and attack AC. Additionally, and in particular regards to the LRASM- it's based on the JASSM-ER, which is a proven land attack cruise missile. So with a little tweaking and necessary funding, the LRASM and the JSM have the capability to replace the air, surface, and sub-launched Harpoon, and potentially could even replace the Tomahawk LAM with a more effective weapon in the longer term.

It just comes down to brass tacks and follow-through at this point. And sadly it seems that those are two things the Navy has been lacking in too great an amount for far too long.

[AdmiralSteve]

It just comes down to brass tacks and follow-through at this point. And sadly it seems that those are two things the Navy has been lacking in too great an amount for far too long.

Remember that the US Navy is the "man" in the relationship. The "woman", a.k.a., Congress, has the pocketbook. [:D] It would be nice if Congress could find a way to be proactive instead of reactive. The US has way too much experience in ASuW for Congress let this slip since the early 90's with little to nothing in the development chain.

[NakedWeasel]

I am just reminded of the Avenger bomber, and many other projects like it. massive sums of money spent on a functional design, and somehow it gets screwed up before it can reach production. We very often seem to take two steps back, for every single step forward. I fear we may be too late. And losing our way on vital national defense programs could cost lives, or even a war.

[AlmightyTallest]

Regarding the LRASM, looks like it's getting fast tracked.

http://www.militaryaerospace.com/articles/2014/03/lrasm-antiship-missile.html

ARLINGTON, Va., 18 March 2014. A U.S. military research program to develop an advanced anti-ship missile to replace the ageing Harpoon missile is nearing the end of its demonstration phase, and the program to develop and deploy the Long Range Anti-Ship Missile (LRASM) should switch over to the U.S. Navy by early 2016.
Officials of the U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) in Arlington, Va., announced plans Friday to award a two-year $175 million follow-on contract to the Lockheed Martin Corp. Missiles and Fire Control segment in Orlando, Fla., which has been developing LRASM for the last five years.

That's getting close to a quarter of a billion dollars to develop it further.

LRASM will rely on on-board targeting systems to acquire the target independently without the presence of prior, precision intelligence, or supporting services like Global Positioning Satellite navigation and data-links. The missile will be designed with advanced counter-countermeasures to evade hostile active defense systems.
The missile is being designed to fire from the Mk 41 Vertical Launch System on Navy surface warships, as well as from the U.S. Air Force B-1B Lancer supersonic bomber, and from the Navy F/A-18E/F Super Hornet carrier-based fighter-bomber. Submarine-launched versions are under consideration.

The upcoming LRASM follow-on research contract from DARPA will mature LRASM systems and technology. The planned research and development effort will complete the LRASM demonstration program, and has several components.
First, Lockheed Martin will continue developing the LRASM long-range targeting sensor, as well as the long-range sensor algorithms and software for advanced LRASM capability against specific high-priority targets in densely spaced groups of surface ships.
Then company missile experts will work on the LRASM missile-control unit to optimize processor throughput margin and address hardware obsolescence. Lockheed Martin also will refine the LRASM electro-optical terminal target sensor hardware software to demonstrate the missile's ability in poor visibility.
After that, Lockheed Martin engineers will work on missile autonomy, and mature LRASM situational awareness software. Finally, company experts will refine the LRASM's weapon data link to meet U.S. Navy requirements.

The Lockheed Martin LRASM has a 1,000-pound penetrator and blast-fragmentation warhead, multi-mode sensor, weapon data link, and enhanced digital anti-jam global positioning system to detect and destroy selected surface targets within groups of ships.

The DARPA LRASM contract is in response to a gap in Navy anti-ship missile technology identified in 2008. The standard Navy anti-ship missile is the subsonic Harpoon, which has been in the inventory since 1977.

Seems like a one weapons fits all package, Suface, submarine, air-launched with a pretty advanced missile going high subsonic.

Thinking more about the RCS of the JASSM and LRASM, look at the photos of it.









This is the current look of the LRASM





That black diamond near the tip is most likely the Thermal IR seeker, sharply angled to reduce RCS, as well as the other lines around it.

Now point that nose directly at you, coming in at 30 feet above the waves, as if you were the ship target. Those sharp angular lines in the front really seem to be set up for deflecting radar away from the central tip of the missile. Even from the side profile, you can see the slant of the fuselage angled from the bottom and narrowing toward the top, if radar hit it from the side aspect, most would probably be deflected skyward in such a situation, not including any RAM materials and other black project hocus pocus they decided to put into it.

And check out the angles on the exhaust to reduce IR signature.

One more photo of the test LRASM being set up with B-1, side profile, very steep angles on the nose section, maximized RCS reduction from the frontal aspect.





Given the world situation recently, I would not be surprised if the testing was accelerated, since the system has some proven components from JASSM-ER.

[AlmightyTallest]

Apologies for the huge photos, I don't know how to resize them. [:(]

[NakedWeasel]

Thanks for the great pics! I agree with your assessment, the weapon looks very stealthy, indeed. 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.... [;)]

[severe7]

Nice photos, it really gives a good perspective on the size of the missile. To bad the supersonic version (B) got cancelled.

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?

[Primarchx]

Any idea if the LRASM has a 2-way data link?