How many new weapon systems work perfectly (or even
moderately well) in their first combat test?
The answer, of course, is none.
That’s why it’s so important to conduct as realistic testing as possible
of new weapon systems and to test according to the way you anticipate using the
weapon.
For example, the Navy’s ‘new’ AGM-158C Long Range Anti-Ship
Missile (LRASM) will be used in massed attacks of hundreds of missiles when
attacking a Chinese surface or carrier group.
Anything less will be an unsuccessful waste of time, resources, and
opportunities. Therefore, we’ve
undoubtedly been conducting tests using many dozens of missiles to prove out
the concept and uncover the hidden problems – because, of course, there are always
hidden problems.
 |
| LRASM |
The LRASM program began in 2009 so now, 15 years later, the weapon must be pretty thoroughly tested and debugged … right? Well, let’s check in on the latest test.
The U.S. Navy in partnership with Lockheed Martin successfully conducted a historic Long-Range Anti-Ship Missile (LRASM) flight test with four missiles simultaneously in flight.
Four missiles? Four? Four?????? 4???????? Fifteen years into the program?! We’re going to use these in volleys of many dozens or hundreds. Fifteen years later we’re now proudly testing four missiles … apparently for the first time ever?
During the 12th Integrated Test Event (ITE-12), the U.S. Navy was able to demonstrate the weapon’s inherent high-end lethality from mission planning through kill chain integration and its effects on the target. All mission objectives were met … [1]
When are all mission objectives ever not met according to Navy and contractor announcements?
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2024/04/lockheed-martin-conducts-test-with-4-lrasm-in-flight/
All participants got either promoted or lucrative job offers post retirement, THOSE are the the real mission objectives. So job well done! It won't be any of these careerists having to deal with the Chinese Fleet.
ReplyDelete"What happens when we launch seventy or a hundred missiles simultaneously?"
ReplyDeleteThat'd be years worth of production in a single attack, by the way.
Someone at the Pentagon has not been doing the math on anything but his bank account.
I suspect that China seems to be the only country that can do the hundreds of simultaneous launch tests you mentioned. Both in terms of cost and speed of production. I was impressed the last time they launched over a hundred planes at once in the Taiwan Strait.
ReplyDelete"China seems to be the only country that can do"
DeleteTo be clear, China seems to be the only country that has the desire and will to conduct large scale tests and exercises. The US certainly has the ability and production capacity if we wanted to. For misguided reasons, we don't want to.
Well the tests probably hasn't gone as well as they woud like but Houthi testing regime seems well underway.
DeleteFor example, the Navy’s ‘new’ AGM-158C Long Range Anti-Ship Missile (LRASM) will be used in massed attacks of hundreds of missiles when attacking a Chinese surface or carrier group.
ReplyDeleteNo, no, no the USA's technology is second to none and everything always works perfectly every time!
One shot, one kill is the name of the game! got to think of the budget!
The infamous Mark 14 torpedo and it's 2 years of unreliability in WW2 is going to be repeated with most USN weapons in a war with China.
Only rapid fixes of weapon systems and masses of new ships replacing attrition losses aren't going to happen anywhere near as fast.
But the USN leadership will live in their delusion till the end after all it's not their lives at risk.
Contractors are pretty good at maximising their profits and minimising their costs. If a programme is highly profitable while proceeding at this pace, there's something deeply wrong with the payment schedule in the contract.
ReplyDeleteWith a significant chance of a shooting war with China in the next few years, the complacency is criminal. The months that we fritter away now with producing munitions (with minimal testing) in the tens and decommission more ships than we produce will come back to haunt us in a terrible way.
ReplyDeleteWhy isn't this more urgent to more people?
Won't hundreds of missiles require the entire air wing of multiple carriers?
ReplyDeleteA 4-carrier group has around 160 Hornets. At, say, 2 missiles per aircraft, 50 aircraft could launch 100 missiles.
DeleteThere are also Air Force planes such as the B-1 that can launch LRASMs.
Vertical launch is an option although the Navy seems to have abandoned the VLS option.
Understand Thales Australia developing a bespoke booster with cooperation of Lockheed for a possible VLS option, Australion is buying the LRSAM.
DeleteNick
I know similar things have been discussed before, but It'd be great to have a solid rocket motor powered anti-ship missile. Even if it has a relatively short range it could be easier to scale its production and would likely be faster than the current missiles.
ReplyDeleteComnavops has said before that in a real 21st century naval war combat will take place at much closer quarters than naval leaders now assume. Long range radiating senors will likely be turned on only intermittently and the nature of the islands environment may mean short warning times. A short range, high speed ASM that is faster, cheaper to produce and availible in large quantities could be a a very useful weopan.
Delete"A short range, high speed ASM that is faster, cheaper to produce and availible in large quantities could be a a very useful weopan."
DeleteYes, it could. However, everyone wants to focus on weapons when we should be at least equally (if not more!) focused on sensors: small, expendable, stealthy, largely passive sensors that can be deployed in large numbers because the ideal situation, as it's always been, is to find the enemy, at a long distance, without him finding you.
The oft mentioned attritable drone swarm. Agreed. We're as likely to get that as we are an effective affordable weapon. :)
DeleteYes, it is frustrating that our existing scout drones cost 5x too much.
DeleteThis caught my eye at Zero Hedge today.
DeleteSkydio [US company] employees went back to Ukraine 17 times to get feedback, Bry said. Its new drone is built around Ukraine’s military needs and feedback from public-safety agencies and other customers, he said, rather than U.S. Defense Department requirements that are sometimes divorced from battlefield realities.
The first part of any WW2 carrier battle was scouting. Whoever found the enemy first could launch the first attack, and that was often decisive. With everyone on EMCON today to avoid revealing their position, expendable drones with decent passive sensors and 200+ mile range could fill the same role as Dauntless scouts back in the day.
DeleteFor a long time, Pentagon had relied sorely on air power thus paid little attention on anti ship missiles until noticed Chinese navy's capabilities of attacking far away enemy ships. Pentagon has found that Harpoon is not enough for modern warfare. I think that initially, Pentagon treated LRSAM as a stop gap product before an ideal long range anti ship missile is developed, for instance, a hypersonic one.
ReplyDeleteAfter years of R&D, Navy may have realized that they have to use LRSAM for a long time. They want to explore full capabilities of LRASM thus conduct a large scale test.
Saturated missile attack was introduced first by Soviet Union as its naval air power was no comparison to American. Its idea is to launch many missiles at same time to overwhelm enemy's defense. To counter this, Arleigh Burke were born.
Compare with anti-ship missiles between US and China:
DeleteUS -
Harpoon (subsonic, medium range),
NSM (IR homing thus not afraid of electronic jamming),
LRASM (long range subsonic multimode guiding)
China -
YJ-83, somewhat like Harpoon, subsonic but latest version have multi mode guidance (include IR homing)
YJ-12, supersonic, focus on high speed attack
YJ-18, subsonic cruise end with supersonic attack
YJ-21, hypersonic, ultra long range
It also has land based ultra long range DF-21D and DF26 focus on attacking carriers