Naval Recognition: LRASM testing on F/A-18E/F started in August

[mikmykWS]

Another great article from NR.

http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.ph ... ew&id=3021

Slowly moving forward on this.

Mike

[ComDev]

Thanks for the heads-up [8D]

Anyone know the designation of this weapon? AGM-179 perhaps?

[xavierv]

^ I can try to ask again (both NAVAIR and LM) but back in April it was still not picked

[xavierv]

TADA! [;)]

http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.ph ... ew&id=3034

[Tomcat84]

Nice scoop

[NakedWeasel]

I posted this article in the Command Facebook Group page last night, and I posted this comment/question:

First, I'd like to be the first to say that is one sexy anti-ship missile in satin black.

But seriously, I am trying to figure out how LRASM and JSM fits into the same roadmap. Are we going to be potentially fielding 3 new ASM weapons, (including the TLAM MMMT)? I would absolutely love to think so, as they all have unique capabilities- but they all seem to have some overlap as well.
The TLAM can be launched by ship or sub, has long range, but AFAIK has no air launch capability.
The LRASM is air and surface launch capable, is slightly smaller and lighter than a Tomahawk, but cannot be launched from a sub, or the F-35 unless carried externally.
The JSM is again even smaller than both LRASM and TLAM MMMT, can be carried in larger numbers, and can be launched from air, (including internally from the F-35), as well as surface and sub-surface platforms. It just doesn't hit quite as hard as the other two.

So what's up? Are we producing 3 different ASMs right now with the intention of fielding all three? Enquiring minds want to know.

[SeaQueen]

LRASM is intended to be a much more capable, long-range, stealthy follow-on to the Harpoon. Tomahawk MMT is intended to be an interim solution. JSM is a smaller anti-ship missile intended to fit inside the bomb-bay of an F-35. The small size imposes limitations on it, though, forcing the engineers to trade off between range and warhead size. Longer range -> Smaller Warhead, Shorter-Range -> Larger Warhead. That means that it's probably less useful against high-threat targets armed with strategic SAM, where you want the extra range so you don't have to get too close to them, and the smaller warhead size means it's less likely for a weapon that hits its target to put it out of action.

But seriously, I am trying to figure out how LRASM and JSM fits into the same roadmap. Are we going to be potentially fielding 3 new ASM weapons, (including the TLAM MMMT)? I would absolutely love to think so, as they all have unique capabilities- but they all seem to have some overlap as well.
The TLAM can be launched by ship or sub, has long range, but AFAIK has no air launch capability.
The LRASM is air and surface launch capable, is slightly smaller and lighter than a Tomahawk, but cannot be launched from a sub, or the F-35 unless carried externally.
The JSM is again even smaller than both LRASM and TLAM MMMT, can be carried in larger numbers, and can be launched from air, (including internally from the F-35), as well as surface and sub-surface platforms. It just doesn't hit quite as hard as the other two.

[Cheechako]

ORIGINAL: NakedWeasel

I posted this article in the Command Facebook Group page last night, and I posted this comment/question:

First, I'd like to be the first to say that is one sexy anti-ship missile in satin black.

But seriously, I am trying to figure out how LRASM and JSM fits into the same roadmap. Are we going to be potentially fielding 3 new ASM weapons, (including the TLAM MMMT)? I would absolutely love to think so, as they all have unique capabilities- but they all seem to have some overlap as well.
The TLAM can be launched by ship or sub, has long range, but AFAIK has no air launch capability.
The LRASM is air and surface launch capable, is slightly smaller and lighter than a Tomahawk, but cannot be launched from a sub, or the F-35 unless carried externally.
The JSM is again even smaller than both LRASM and TLAM MMMT, can be carried in larger numbers, and can be launched from air, (including internally from the F-35), as well as surface and sub-surface platforms. It just doesn't hit quite as hard as the other two.

So what's up? Are we producing 3 different ASMs right now with the intention of fielding all three? Enquiring minds want to know.

Also potentially add the NSM (I know it's almost identical to the JSM but...) There's a RFI out for the LCS for an OTH missile. From everything on the net, it seems that missile will probably be either the harpoon or NSM.

[ComDev]

Good job on the designation, I've updated the database. Thanks! [:D]

[ComDev]

The AGM-158C LRASM is more than twice the weight of the JSM [8D]

[mikmykWS]

Nice work!

[xavierv]

Don't forget "Harpoon Next Generation" that will compete for LCS OTH weapon (but not for AOSUW Increment II)

The LRASM is air and surface launch capable, is slightly smaller and lighter than a Tomahawk, but cannot be launched from a sub

LM is working on a sub launched variant actually

[NakedWeasel]

Yes I did see that. I also saw that Kongsberg was developing a sub-launched variant of the NSM as well.

[Cheechako]

ORIGINAL: NakedWeasel

Yes I did see that. I also saw that Kongsberg was developing a sub-launched variant of the NSM as well.

I thought the sub-launch version was actually based on the JSM.

[NakedWeasel]

ORIGINAL: Cheechako

ORIGINAL: NakedWeasel

Yes I did see that. I also saw that Kongsberg was developing a sub-launched variant of the NSM as well.

I thought the sub-launch version was actually based on the JSM.

Possibly. It gets a little confusing. I'm a bit too tired at the moment to research it, but I am reasonably certain I saw a graphic from Kongsberg that depicted a containerized, tube-launched missile.