tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post5852523692617135558..comments2024-03-28T04:22:28.228-07:00Comments on Navy Matters: LRASM UpdateComNavOpshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comBlogger72125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-90302308991070125292022-01-01T17:46:42.064-08:002022-01-01T17:46:42.064-08:00Andy M is correct that LRASM was always a short-te...Andy M is correct that LRASM was always a short-term interim capability for a longer-range air-launched anti-ship missile. The Navy defined the need as "Offensive Anti-Surface Warfare (OASuW) Increment 1 and a derivative of JASSM was chosen as the quickest way to get a suitable weapon delivered. The plan from the start was for "OASuW Increment 2" to develop a more capable long-term solution to be ready by 2028.<br /><br />Sources:<br /><br />https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2021/05/us-navy-issues-details-on-new-offensive-anti-surface-warfare-oasuw-increment-2/<br /><br />As Naval News reported previously, the LRASM won the Offensive Anti-Surface Warfare (OASuW) Increment 1 program competition which called for the development of a new missile for the B-1B and Super Hornet to destroy ships from standoff ranges. The OASuW Increment 1 program is the first weapon of an incremental approach to produce an OASuW capability in response to a U.S. Pacific Fleet Urgent Operational Need generated in 2008. The OASuW Increment 1 is an accelerated acquisition program to procure a limited number of air-launched missiles to meet this near-term U.S. Pacific Fleet requirement by leveraging the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) LRASM.<br /><br />According to the latest Director Operational Test and Evaluation (DOT&E) report, OASuW Increment 2 will deliver long-term anti-surface warfare (ASuW) capabilities to counter future threats. The DOD continues to plan for OASuW Increment 2 to be developed via full and open competition, and Initial Operational Capability is anticipated FY28-30. Due to congressional budget reductions for OASuW Increment 2, the U.S. Navy funded an incremental upgrade – LRASM 1.1 – to bridge the gap until an OASuW Increment 2 program of record is established. This upgrade incorporates missile hardware and software improvements to address component obsolescence issues and enhance targeting capabilities.<br /><br /><br /><br />https://news.usni.org/2019/04/15/navy-investing-in-researching-next-generation-missiles-enhancing-current-ones<br /><br />On the anti-surface side, an Increment 1 – the Long Range Anti-Ship Missile (LRASM) built by Lockheed Martin – in early FY 2019 achieved Early Operational Capability with the Air Force B-1B, and the weapon “is on-track to achieve EOC on the Navy’s F/A-18E/F aircraft prior to the schedule objective of the fourth quarter of FY 2019.”<br /><br />The FY 2020 budget request asks for $143.2 million to buy the weapons and another $65.4 million to already begin researching a LRASM 1.1 variant with additional capabilities “to bridge the gap until an OASuW Increment 2 program of record can be established,” the testimony reads.<br /><br />OASuW Increment 2 is the next-generation capability being researched, compared to the LRASM and V1.1 covering the now and the near-term. Increment 2 looks at defeating threats in 2028 and beyond and will be developed through an open competition.<br /><br /><br /><br />https://www.dote.osd.mil/Portals/97/pub/reports/FY2017/navy/2017oasuw.pdf?ver=2019-08-19-113708-850<br /><br />The Navy plans to pursue a competitive acquisition strategy for the OASuW Increment 2, which is intended to be an offensive system of systems solution leveraging OASuW Increment 1 technologies to meet future maritime threats beyond 2024. Due to removal of funding for Increment 2 in the 2018 President’s Budget, the Navy is reevaluating its strategy for OASuW Increment 2.<br /><br /><br /><br />https://www.dote.osd.mil/Portals/97/pub/reports/FY2019/navy/2019oasuw.pdf?ver=2020-01-30-115519-503<br /><br />OASuW Increment 2 will deliver the long-term, air-launched anti-surface warfare (ASuW) capabilities to counter future threats. The Department continues to plan for OASuW Increment 2 to be developed via full and open competition. Due to congressional budget reductions for OASuW Increment 2, the Navy funded an incremental upgrade called LRASM 1.1 to bridge the gap until an OASuW Increment 2 program of record can be established. Increment 2 Initial Operational Capability is planned for the FY28-30 timeframe.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-41337348466050971012021-04-19T01:29:57.800-07:002021-04-19T01:29:57.800-07:00If F35 development finishes US allies will be a li...If F35 development finishes US allies will be a little miffed. Alex H.https://www.blogger.com/profile/02460763423745339699noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-67983884569221853502021-04-08T01:23:12.145-07:002021-04-08T01:23:12.145-07:00For me, Taiwan's fate is already decided. Ther...For me, Taiwan's fate is already decided. There is no hope for them and relief is not coming. The US Navy (currently) lacks any ability to surge and even if we want to, we will just be cannon folders (because of tactics and training) with their overwhelming power. It's like Germany in the beginning of WW2, it's hard to see anyway out for Poland.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06528259480287115347noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-30303857530189864072021-04-07T12:02:32.816-07:002021-04-07T12:02:32.816-07:00"I think part of the complication became LCS ..."I think part of the complication became LCS being unable to support the weight or space of a LRASM installation."<br /><br />I've never heard that. Do you have a reference?<br /><br />Here's what Lockheed had to say about dropping out of the Over The Horizon missile competition for the LCS:<br /><br />"... it became clear that our offering would not be fully valued ...<br /><br />Lockheed Martin, frustrated by changing requirements the company feels are skewed to a particular competitor [Kongsberg’s NSM], is dropping out of the U.S. Navy’s over-the-horizon missile program"<br /><br />I've heard nothing about weight/space issues.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-70954670586509150592021-04-07T09:53:25.173-07:002021-04-07T09:53:25.173-07:00"I'm not sure it's quite THAT bad (al..."I'm not sure it's quite THAT bad (although it IS bad). An amphibious landing opposed by a competent military remains an extremely difficult, complex, and risky operation even if you have air superiority."<br /><br />Given Tawain public lamentations on the state of its Army, limited private ownership of firearms, and geographical limitations... I suspect distribution of arms, coordination of units, and the establishment of assembly points for counterattacks will be impossible without any form of resistance in the air.Purple Caliconoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-54695638641633971012021-04-07T07:27:03.382-07:002021-04-07T07:27:03.382-07:00George Friedman, in his recent book, THE STORM BEF...George Friedman, in his recent book, THE STORM BEFORE THE CALM, describes a pending battle in the USA between experts and common sense, which he expects to come to a head sometime in the next decade. I think we have seen signs of that in the COVID debate. I'm not sure where it might next rear its head, but military and defense matters are ripe for it to happen there.CDR Chiphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16596017728508279652noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-59633154389103858682021-04-07T04:26:50.265-07:002021-04-07T04:26:50.265-07:00The Mk57 peripheral VLS was intended to be a large...The Mk57 peripheral VLS was intended to be a larger VLS system although no missile currently exists or is under development that is appropriate for the system so one has to wonder what purpose the Navy thought it would serve.<br /><br />I fully support ship launched ballistic missiles and if that requires a new launch system for larger missiles, that's fine.<br /><br />Traditionally, the 'warning' of nuclear missiles was that they would be carried on ballistic missiles and the flight trajectory would be the possible indicator. The Chinese, however, have developed and produced large numbers of conventional ballistic missiles (and nuclear) so the country/person you should be asking this question of is China. If they are unconcerned about our ability to discern nuclear versus conventional missiles, then we should not handcuff ourselves over the concern, either.<br /><br />As far as nuclear armed cruise missiles, there is no way to tell and that applies to both sides.<br /><br />The tempering factor in the nuclear identification issue is MAD. There is no reason for either side to use nuclear weapons, hence, there is no reason to be concerned with identification of missiles.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-74050924110400033382021-04-07T04:19:03.142-07:002021-04-07T04:19:03.142-07:00"if strike fighters are completely off the ta..."if strike fighters are completely off the table, then the only way the Army is getting supporting fires is with tube and rocket artillery and its own attack helicopters"<br /><br />The issue is not HOW to provide the necessary support; the issue is WHO provides that support. The US military clearly defines the roles of the various services. The Army is moving well outside its lane and intruding into both the Air Force and Navy areas of responsibility.<br /><br />If you're trying to make the argument that the Army has no choice but to provide its own deep strike because the Air Force and Navy can't (the strike aircraft issue you allude to), the solution is NOT to duplicate capabilities but to adjust the HOW of the lacking service(s).<br /><br />Make no mistake, this is not a case of the Army trying to provide for a gap in US military capability; this is a case of the Army seeing a potential war (with China) that they won't be invited to because there is little or no use for ground forces. This is a budget grab intended to sustain their relevance and, hence, budget justification.<br /><br />As a somewhat related note, you're also conflating multiple missions. Deep strike, for which I've stated manned aircraft are inappropriate, is a different mission than CAS or BAI and I've made no statement about the relevance or wisdom of manned aircraft for those roles. However, that's a different subject so I'll leave it be unless you want to discuss it.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-59914443814054626012021-04-07T01:30:57.033-07:002021-04-07T01:30:57.033-07:00By coincidence, a UK paper published this today : ...By coincidence, a UK paper published this today : https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1419614/china-news-masterplan-beijing-new-silk-road-uk-europe-eu-economy-trade-politics-spt . It's a reasonable visual summary of part of China's strategy but it also shows weaknesses and many of these lines are vulnerable. A 1,000 mile missile can hit railway junctions and ports (although you might argue that a 250 mile missile can do the same with little increase in risk). However, in the SCS area it's anti-ship weapons that are needed - basing more missiles in Taiwan (under Taiwanese control) makes sense but these don't need to be long-range. History tells us that the Defender should have the advantage, especially if they are well prepared - Taiwan needs mines and shorter range weapons plus deep fortifications. What the US needs depends on whether the US is really prepared to do politically. Will the US strike Chinese mainland bases in Defence of Taiwan? Will the US clear the Chinese out of their island bases in the SCS? If the US continues with a strategy of sitting outside the SCS and lobbing missiles in from 1,000 miles away (and only threatening from 1 single direction!), it's already lost. Russia was 'defeated' by surrounding it on all sides so it had so many threats it couldn't counter them all - we're only giving China 1 thing to defend against. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-88447637390184194142021-04-06T21:32:24.452-07:002021-04-06T21:32:24.452-07:00Let's not forget that Taiwan has ferry docks a...Let's not forget that Taiwan has ferry docks and ports; China only needs enough amphibious lift to secure a beachhead and take the ports, then they can ship in reinforcements with ro-ros.JMDhttp://www.google.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-85606497522696624452021-04-06T20:36:05.560-07:002021-04-06T20:36:05.560-07:00"They absolutely are duplicating Air Force an..."They absolutely are duplicating Air Force and Navy capabilities, if not exact equipment. Deep strike is the Air Force's mission and naval strike is the Navy's."<br /><br />From a certain point of view, I'd say the Army's move to make their TBMs antiship capable is just returning to the old Coastal Artillery mission, a mission which has been neglected for quite some time. Although I do agree that's probably budget spin.<br /><br />The problem is that deep strike is delivered by the Air Force using strike fighters, and as you've opined, that is no longer viable in peer war ( https://navy-matters.blogspot.com/2021/03/why-do-we-need-strike-aircraft.html ). However, cruise missiles are not yet responsive enough to support the army in CAS and BAI, so if strike fighters are completely off the table, then the only way the Army is getting supporting fires is with tube and rocket artillery and its own attack helicopters (which have clear limits in range, endurance, payload, and survivability).JMDhttp://www.google.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-71412084025079933882021-04-06T20:07:16.114-07:002021-04-06T20:07:16.114-07:00"Once Tawain loses the ability to launch airc..."Once Tawain loses the ability to launch aircraft, for all intents and purposes, the war is over. I foresee that not even taking 72hrs."<br /><br />I'm not sure it's quite THAT bad (although it IS bad). An amphibious landing opposed by a competent military remains an extremely difficult, complex, and risky operation even if you have air superiority. Bob Nagelehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06709114373565804826noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-29061513956952561402021-04-06T18:51:25.820-07:002021-04-06T18:51:25.820-07:00There's a lot of comments on the nature of hav...There's a lot of comments on the nature of having a 1000 miles range missiles (whatever the type) but I believe the issue of implementation lies with the VLS system. Trying to fit a bigger and heavier missile in a smaller compartment does not work well. I am reminded that it's one of the inherent issues with advancing the SM-6 program, the size prevents it from carrying enough fuel to catch up with any ICBMs. Perhaps it's time we aim for a bigger or better launching mechanics (the crane?) for missiles. <br /><br />On the other hand, all this talking about which missile is better got me thinking about submarine-launched nuclear missiles. How exactly could any nation know that our 1000 miles missile couldbe nuclear in disguise? And in kind, respond with nuclear weapons? In the past, it's often very clear the method of delivery is the telling sign of it being nuclear or not. Now that we are discussing missiles that could cary a nuclear warhead if it wants, how exactly would the nuclear stakes change? lpnam9114https://www.blogger.com/profile/11976981950593478526noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-75658568056915670722021-04-06T15:53:54.835-07:002021-04-06T15:53:54.835-07:00"E-2D can perform sea surface search."
..."E-2D can perform sea surface search."<br /><br />Of course it can. That's not the issue. Operationally, it doesn't. It does not go out on surface searches. It stays with the carrier to monitor and manage aerial operations.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-90220612721202727842021-04-06T15:33:48.926-07:002021-04-06T15:33:48.926-07:00E-2D can perform sea surface search.
https://www....E-2D can perform sea surface search.<br /><br />https://www.militaryaerospace.com/sensors/article/14178508/radar-signal-processing-e2d-aircraft<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-63623249282220324452021-04-06T14:24:15.850-07:002021-04-06T14:24:15.850-07:00Once Tawain loses the ability to launch aircraft, ...Once Tawain loses the ability to launch aircraft, for all intents and purposes, the war is over. I foresee that not even taking 72hrs.<br /><br />Anything past that point is pacification operations...Purple Caliconoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-5635747326290179902021-04-06T12:37:02.148-07:002021-04-06T12:37:02.148-07:00@Anonymous
" It has been a long time that sm...@Anonymous<br /><br />" It has been a long time that smart high graduates generally don't choose STEM. I was shocked to learn that F-22's R&D team's average age was close to 60! "<br /><br />Err you work with many senior researchers or engineers. You don't get that job out of your 4 year degree. Even once you are 30ish have a PhD or the equivalent you are still likely to be expected do the equivalent of one or more post doc jobs before you get to in the cutting edge of something.<br /><br />The more narrow the field and the more onerous the requirements the more likely you drift the age up even more. A fair amount of people don't like the day to day hassle of a government/national security job.Kathhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09782968433043931011noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-81491503972506586042021-04-06T12:29:36.356-07:002021-04-06T12:29:36.356-07:00I also wonder if the LRSO (Long range stand off) c...I also wonder if the LRSO (Long range stand off) cruise missile is going to have a conventional counterpart and if that may have some part in the decision making around the interim nature of LRASM. Having a production line that can produce a stealthy conventional weapon and a nuclear version may keep the cost down on the ongoing upkeep of the nuclear version. If you only produce 200 nuclear cruise missiles they will never be used and the production equipment to produce replacement components will soon be uneconomical to maintain. If there is a hot production line for the conventional version, upgrades to the nuclear version are likely.michael woltmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16719963700565405955noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-31652868809801613262021-04-06T12:09:39.539-07:002021-04-06T12:09:39.539-07:00Titles are funny things. They are used to convey ...Titles are funny things. They are used to convey information about status or rank, but also responsibility or duty. Problems arises when someone who possesses a title does not accept the responsibility of the title. Those who fail to accept the responsibility are not worthy of the title they hold.michael woltmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16719963700565405955noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-72278116274580907702021-04-06T10:10:15.845-07:002021-04-06T10:10:15.845-07:00"Or maybe part of the problem is an over reli..."Or maybe part of the problem is an over reliance on titles like expert or admiral and the failure to apply history, wisdom, and effort to thinking about challenges."<br /><br />Thumbs up!ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-88173824603116970052021-04-06T09:37:56.799-07:002021-04-06T09:37:56.799-07:00What to call us amateurs? Hmmm...Pontificators? Th...What to call us amateurs? Hmmm...Pontificators? The term was originally not meant to be an insult but rather a descriptor of someone who thought deeply about (pontificated) a subject.<br />Nautical Savant? Maritime Sage? Unorthodox Advisor? Myself I tend to be merely an Enfant Terrible.<br />Or maybe part of the problem is an over reliance on titles like expert or admiral and the failure to apply history, wisdom, and effort to thinking about challenges.Johnnie Zhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06943393440234157180noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-89157384844351836552021-04-06T09:14:41.710-07:002021-04-06T09:14:41.710-07:00The US Army leader who were the experts in weapons...The US Army leader who were the experts in weapons procurement in 1861 soundly rejected repeating rifles. Lincoln with no military training or technical training insisted vigorously the introduction of Spenser and Henry rifles which often turned the tide of Battle. <br />The Navy steadfastly opposed air power throughout the 1930's in favor of battleships. Much of the Navy opposed President Ronald Reagan's insistence on reactivating the New Jersey class battleships, but while contemporary British Ships in the Falklands worried about the Exocet missile, US Battleships off the coast of war-torn Lebanon could joke that would only chip their paint.<br />Professionals are all capable of not just mistakes but major mistakes and amateurs often see weakness that professionals don't. Johnnie Zhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06943393440234157180noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-80474861059155527732021-04-06T09:07:04.967-07:002021-04-06T09:07:04.967-07:00Johnnie Z. I don't consider myself a "pro...Johnnie Z. I don't consider myself a "professional" since I don't publish fancy articles in BD or own a blog like CNO BUT I don't consider myself an "amateur" either since I was in the Army (military experience) and probably been reading history since I was a little kid, collecting for a few decades a very extensive military library. I'm sure that fits most people here in general. So I don't know what exactly we should call ourselves....interesting question. NICOhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14567491909555759918noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-51347762575575727992021-04-06T08:59:50.866-07:002021-04-06T08:59:50.866-07:00I think Johnnie Z raises an interesting point if I...I think Johnnie Z raises an interesting point if I can piggyback on his comments: what exactly are we targeting here? Seems to me all the services are all over place, developing somewhat similar missiles, mostly hypersonic since its the latest fashion but what are we targeting? Is it necessary? Is there other ways to reach these targets? What is that important 1000 miles out to the battlefield? What about closer range? Do we have missiles for that? The example of 1000 beachhead missile attack isn't realistic, we know that BUT I think the point still remains: its really expensive to do MASSIVE FIRES with missiles and we don't have the inventory to do that for very long.<br /><br />DoD as usual is spending a lot of money on all these missiles but what exactly are they doing?NICOhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14567491909555759918noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-3769796795046552512021-04-06T08:57:01.553-07:002021-04-06T08:57:01.553-07:00"amateurs like us"
Just as a point of c..."amateurs like us"<br /><br />Just as a point of clarity, a professional is someone who puts time, effort, and study into a subject. That makes 'us' professionals. I would suggest that makes many of us more professional than military leaders. What 'amateurs like us' lack is the details about equipment performance. I would also like to believe we lack training but seeing the quality of what passes for training in the military, I don't think that's a valid issue to any great extent. In fact, much of the training the military receives is so badly flawed as to be counter-productive meaning worse than no training at all. The military is developing bad habits which is worse than no habits - as any athlete will attest.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.com