The Navy has been trying, half-heartedly, to replace the obsolete Harpoon anti-ship missile. The initial attempt was/is the Long Range Anti-Ship Missile (LRASM). Let’s check the status of the program.
The LRASM program began in 2009 and production was authorized in February 2014 as an urgent capability stop-gap solution to address range and survivability problems with the Harpoon missile.[1] This is a completely valid need/requirement as the Harpoon is obsolete against any moderate defense. As an urgent need, accelerated program, the LRASM should have been put into production in, what, several months, maybe a year given that it is a modification of an existing missile, the Joint Air to Surface Standoff Missile (JASSM)? By now, thirteen urgent years later, we should have thousands of missiles in the fleet and in inventory, right?
As a reminder, the LRASM program initially had two paths: the LRASM-A version was a subsonic cruise missile based on the Lockheed Martin's AGM-158 JASSM-ER while the LRASM-B version was a supersonic missile. The –B was cancelled in 2012.
The initial plan was for LRASM to be launched from aircraft and, eventually, adapted to ship launch from VLS systems. As we’ve noted, after some initial feasibility tests, the ship launched version seems to have ceased development.
A brief timeline is presented below. Note that this was an urgent need program. With that in mind, the drawn out time frame is quite disappointing.
2009 – Program start with LRASM-A subsonic version and LRASM-B supersonic version.
2012 – LRASM-B cancelled.
2013 – Testing begins.
2013 – Company funded VLS test.
2015 – Designated AGM-158C
2017 – Lot 1 Low Rate Initial Production contract for 23 air-launched missiles.
2018 – Approved for use on B-1 bomber.
2019 – Approved for use on F-18 Hornet.
Had the urgent need been met in a year or less, this program would have been an excellent example of rapid adaptability and responsiveness. As it stands, however, it is yet another example of a badly broken R&D and procurement system.
Here is a timeline of the LRASM production contracts.
Jul 2017 - LM awarded $86M contract for production of 23 missiles for Lot 1 LRIP [3]
Jan 2019 - LM awarded $172M contract for production of 50 missiles for Lot 2 [4]
Apr 2020 - LM awarded $167M contract for production of 48 missiles for Lot 3 [6]
Feb 2021 – LM awarded $414M contract for production of 137 missiles for Lots 4 and 5 [2]
Nov 2021 – LM awarded $125M contract for production of 42 missiles for Lot 6 [5]
The contract totals appear to be $964M for 300 missiles which gives an average cost of $3.2M per missile.
So, an urgent need program has delivered (meaning contracts awarded rather than missiles actually delivered) 300 missiles in 8 years using an existing missile as its basis. That’s disappointing performance, to say the least. I guess ‘urgent’ doesn’t mean in the military what it does in real life.
________________________________
Related Note: The LRASM was to have been quickly followed by the Offensive Anti-Surface Warfare (OASuW) Increment 2 anti-ship missile slated for entry into service in 2024. In reality, the 2020 DOT&E report states that the Navy is now hoping for OASuW Increment 2 sometime in the FY28-30 time range and, without a doubt, that will slip by a few to several years. This really is pathetic.
________________________________
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-158C_LRASM
[2]https://www.airforce-technology.com/news/lockheed-martin-lrasm-production-usaf-navy/
[6] https://finance.yahoo.com/news/lockheed-martin-lmt-secures-168m-145202359.html
"The LRASM was to have been quickly followed by the Offensive Anti-Surface Warfare (OASuW) Increment 2 anti-ship missile slated for entry into service in 2024."
ReplyDeleteSo the Pentagon thought the LRASM isn't good enough, and wants to replace it with a new missile? Fine, but how are the USMC, USN, and USAF going to meet its CURRENT NEEDS? Keep using the Harpoon? Can the USN even get new Harpoons, i.e., are the factories that build the missile and its components still open?
This is the "divest to invest" mess all over again, i.e., the USN's plan to retire older but still serviceable ships now, to pay for new ships that will be built, launched, and commissioned some time in the future. Remember what happened when the USN tried that in the 2000s, retiring Oliver Hazard Perry class frigates in favor of the then unbuilt LCSs, and the Spruance class destroyers in favor of the Zumwalt?
Don't worry. In the near future, it'll probably be divesting cruisers and older Burkes in hopes of getting wonderful unmanned vessels around 2030 or so. Maybe.
Delete"So, an urgent need program has delivered (meaning contracts awarded rather than missiles actually delivered) 300 missiles in 8 years using an existing missile as its basis. That’s disappointing performance, to say the least. I guess ‘urgent’ doesn’t mean in the military what it does in real life."
ReplyDeleteWell, forty missiles a year is plenty more than what a war will require, isn't it?
Unfortunately, I suspect that the slow progress has to do with the planned use. No one in the Navy (or anywhere else) thinks or wants to believe or act on the idea that we will get into a ship killing war. Hence better to fund the DDG-1000, USS Ford or the LCS programs. If you start destroying the enemies' ships and not just doing pinprick airstrikes, you might find yourself with either a) an enemy that hits your large expensive ships, or b) a real war that there is no backing out of. If you don't have matches, it is much harder to start a fire.
ReplyDeleteJust my take on why this program got slow rolled.
That type of thinking is common among those who work in government. I've heard it many times from friends in gov't positions. It's the same type of thinking that was common in the 1920s and early 30s. We all know what happened next.
DeleteJG, all the hot money is going to hypersonics.
DeleteNo sense buying old and slow LRSAM when there
swarms of new acronyms HAWC,TBG,PGS to soak up funding.
Unfortunately, you are both right. it is the way Government works because no one measures performance as to how long it took get a program fielded or why. Better yet why didn't you cancel it when the development took too long or testing showed it was not going to work. System Commander Organizations do not even know how many programs they have underway or how many have not been started. And yes, only the programs (or acronyms) that are hot get funding because pushing a hot program is how you get noticed for promotion. It is not the process or the system, it is the people in it and how they are managed (not lead).
Delete"..all the hot money is going to hypersonics."
DeleteFunny thing how thats a lot of "keep up with the Joneses", and a previous post by CNO really looks at the truly low level of utility and application for hypersonics...
Sounds like the production schedule for mk-14 torpedos circa 1930s. Hopefully our T&D is at least a little better.
ReplyDeleteLRASW / OASuW Inc. 1 incurred technical problems that might have contributed to delay in the program.
ReplyDeleteIt was only in April 2021 when NAVAIR confirmed its intention to develop and procure OASuW Inc 2 ASuW missile (a renamed LRASM B?) for carrier aircraft, as far as know no contracts issued as yet so does not appear a priority.
PS Australia wanting 200 LRASWs, mention of $1 billion with add ons.
Lockheed agreed to assist Thales Australia in developing LRSAM booster to presumably fire from Mk41 VLS cells, the LRSAM SL variant.
Navy funding Boeing to integrate the LRASW on the P-8, Lockheed mention of F-35 integration, will join B1B and F-18 which already operational.
During the second week of the war, when all sides have run out of their smart munitions, it might be nice to have some armored ships with big guns on them.
ReplyDeleteLutefisk
This post is depressing, but again shows a critical and key problem with todays procurement: A total lack of urgency!!! You can't convince me that we don't have the talent to create things in a short period. Hell, one woman designed the OHPs in a day!! Ok not a perfect example but still... If we need a new missile, you gather up the team, put on some fresh coffee, order pizza, and stay til its done!!! Maybe slight hyperbole, but if the manpower and urgency are put in the same room, theres really no reason a weapon cant go from napkin doodle to blueprint/prototype in a year. The F-14 is a pretty good example of quick work. How about all the ships and planes from WWII that went from nonexistent to mass production in a short time (and without computers to help, video conferences to connect design teams, etc)?? And while some may argue that things werent as complex back then, and therefore easier to design/build, they were still state of the art and quite complex for their time. You need only compare the tech on say, an Iowa with the level of a pre-war or even post-war automobile to put it in perspective. We have no excuse today for the timelines we're mired in.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately from what I have se3en since I left the Government 25 years ago, the knowledge level has jsut plummeted. No one knows what has to be done to get contract in place, no one knows what systems engineering is, no one knows what a maintenance strategy is and worse no one knows what a CONOPS is and how important it is. If you don't know how to build something, no one ccan articulate what it is they want, and only political considerations are king. Then getting people that only know that way of working will never build anything that 2orks in an infinite amount of time. Sorry but this is reality today.
DeleteI see your point, and youre probably quite right. But since the navy doesnt seem to do much in-house design anymore, what about all the defense contractors? Isnt that where all the design talent lives now? Clearly that isn't the ideal scenario. But its what we've got. I understand that getting the approval to issue a RFP is a bureaucratic and budgetary minefield in itself, and thats somthing that needs streamlined. Back in the old days, I recall when manufacturers built prototypes on their own dime, and then competed for a production contract. I think we've gone astray, as today we write production contracts for non-existent systems and are on the "hopes and prayers" plan that somthing worthwhile comes out the other end...
DeleteThe Talent at the Defense contractors is also getting low. Since Les Aspin's Last Supper, the consoldiation of defensecompanies AND their move into ONLY defense work (they all shed their commercial branches) has made everything about dollars. So if the Customer doesn't know how design should be done, they can't estimate the costs and so the win strategy is low bid everything. After awhile the defense contractors stop doing design the right way and instead only do what the contract and cusrtomer can afford. I just left a major defense contractor that has a division that has no idea how to produce a Bill of Material, perform configuration management, nor most other disciplines. However, they are a good hobby shop producing neat prototypes. The Commercial company I worked at before had better design, CM, Testing, and manufacturing capabilities. Becuase they know if they can't build it repeatedly, or it doesn't work, they can't sell it and stay in business. When is hte last time a Defense contractor lost business for miserable failures? Was Lock Mart barred from FFG after LCS? Is HII gonna lose business after teh Ford? Et Cetera Et Cetera.
DeleteA bit of hyperbole but sad to see that China can produce more ships than USA can produce good ASMs!!!
ReplyDelete"The Navy has been trying, half-heartedly, to replace the obsolete Harpoon anti-ship missile."
ReplyDeleteThe Navy has pretty much always been half-hearted when it comes to surface-launched anti-ship missiles. I have a story from the 1970s that would illustrate how absurdly much so, but it used to be classified SECRET and I don't know if it has been declassified.
I have always gotten the impression that it was the airdale community who fought against it--we can take care of enemy ships with aircraft, so surface ships don't need no stinkin' anti-ship missiles. But whatever the internal politics, now would be a good time to abandon them and get more and better missiles.
Someone claimed on an internet forum the AIM-7 Sparrow could be used as an air-launched antiship missile. Can't we replace the AIM-120 AMRAAM and/or the RIM-162 ESSM guidance section to create antiship variants of those missiles? I understand the result will be deficient, even as a stopgap, due to the relatively small warheads; but it must be better than nothing.
ReplyDeleteAlternatively, we can adapt our planes to use antiship missiles developed for the Japanese Air Self-Defense Force- again, as a stopgap.
I wonder if the low missile production rate it's just because it's peacetime. Here's India's expected missile production rate with their new factory- 100 per year:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2021/12/new-brahmos-manufacturing-center-in-india-to-produce-up-to-100-cruise-missiles-per-year/#:~:text=The%20new%20Brahmos%20Manufacturing%20Center,Defense%20Ministry's%20press%20office%20said.&text=The%20center%20is%20expected%20to,of%20more%20than%2080%20hectares.
That doesn't mean the numbers aren't low though, especially if the war gamers predict a war around 2025, which isn't far away.
Andrew
There's several ways to look at this:
Delete1. If you have the capacity to instantly increase production 10-100 fold when war starts then a low peacetime production rate is acceptable. Of course, we have no such capacity.
2. Even in peacetime, we should be doing a LOT more live fire exercises to test both the missiles and the ships/crews. At a bare minimum, every combat ship in the fleet should do 1-6 launches per year. That sets a bare minimum production requirement of 100-600 launches of whatever ship mounted anti-ship missile we have. The same applies to aircraft and since we have hundreds of aircraft … A robust training usage rate also keeps the missile inventory 'fresh'.
3. A higher peacetime production rate also allows us to identify critical manufacturing issues for high rate war production; things like raw material and rare earth element availability, chip availability, and logistics.
I would think that a primary concern of building inventory is the potential obsolescence of the missiles.
DeleteBut as long as you retain the launch capability for the older missiles, they would probably look pretty good two or three weeks into a conflict....at least better than having nothing.
Lutefisk
I think we heading for a 1914 scenario where they all thought war would be over by Christmas....we aren't even close to being able to go more than a few weeks with high levels of ammunition expenditure.
Delete"...we aren't even close to being able to go more than a few weeks..."
ReplyDeleteShips with cannon, airplanes dropping dumb bombs.
We don't seem to be prepared for either extended smart weapons conflict, or the aftermath.
Lutefisk
As I read, Navy treats LRASM as a stop gap product before they can develop a satisfactory anti-ship missile. LRASM has good capabilities and short coming. Basically, it is a cruise missile heavily relies on reconnaissances from other platforms. It can search target if no other platform can provide final range target information. It can use enemy ships' radar signals to home and select the one with strongest radar signal to hit (oresume largest ship in a group). It is subsonic (thus slow) and can be easily spot and locate by planes like E-2 from above (China has better ones).
ReplyDeleteUS Navy Institute has just posted concept design of DDG(X), include weapons plan to be carried. You can read it to find more.
Just read it and wonder if CNO will comment.
DeleteCurious to see USN seem to stick with MK41 VLS and not move forward with MK57. Also, seems like USN wants to have the forward 32 cell be replaced or modular? with a 12 cell for hypersonics.
Didn't see anything on approximate weight we looking at.
I've thought about posting on this but,
Delete1. It's still conjectural.
2. It's just a slight rehash of the Burke. Really, what's new about it? Most of the design elements are listed as 'future' which, as we know, tends to never happen.
I think the USN likes the NSM for short range & SM6 for long range antiship attack. NSM Isa very good missile but it's range is too short for vast Pacific & it lacks punch with only 250 lbs warhead. It's perfect for small ships however. Though I do nit view Constellation as a small ship. They are more or less the tonnage of an Arkeigh Burk I.
ReplyDeleteSM6 is a very fine antiship missile. It's range, speed & maneuverability would make it very difficult to intercept. It is approaching hypersonic speeds. It's small warhead is acceptable given the speed it will behitting its target. My only concern is its active guidance based on old amraam C is susceptible to jamming.