Future PLAN naval and carrier operations

Jura The idiot · Sep 17, 2019

more general question is how the LRASM would fare against

Block Va Maritime Strike Tomahawk, and
Harpoon Block II+

upgrade kits for old Tomahawks and Harpoons (whose advantage is they're already wired on the USN warships),

especially in terms of money;

all three missiles are credible,

so they'd have to be taken care of by Opfor's long(er) range missiles

(and not just by Opfor's CIWSs and/or ECMs)

if they were used in a saturation attack

Tirdent · Sep 17, 2019

While I agree that swarming and ESM/ECM aren't new (at least not to the Russians - the US is in a position of playing catch-up here, as the Chinese/Russians are/were in terms of LO aircraft), I do expect LRASM to be a step change in LO. It has been very carefully shaped: tail surfaces and flight controls are reduced to the absolute minimum (just a fin and elevons!), the potentially problematic wing fold hinges and engine air intake are on the belly to mask them in sea-skimming flight. Additionally the missile body is essentially woven as a single piece (think carbon fibre basket), so surface discontinuities are minimized to an unprecedented degree and it relies more on passive guidance (EMCON) than most other AShMs.

It may not be smarter than its best non-US counterparts, but it's definitely one sneaky bastard!

Brumby said:
The P-700 basically adopts a sequential instruction set in allocating an Alpha missile for target distribution in an attrition scenario. The communication and instructions is one way. This is entirely different to that of the LRASM as it is AI driven algorithm with no pre-assigned Alpha but rather operating in a swarm like manner with action sets driven by algorithm based on real time assessment of the electronic order of battle (EOB) as gathered through their collective ESM.

There is a very good reason for that: one-way comms expose only the lead missile to ESM signals interception, all the missiles talking with all of the others makes the entire swarm vulnerable.

Jura The idiot · Sep 17, 2019

Today at 8:26 AM

Jura said:
here's the most recent link I've now found on the OASuW (an LRASM successor):
Navy Investing in Researching Next-Generation Missiles, Enhancing Current Ones
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

it's going to be interesting to watch if the Pentagon goes supersonic as in the cancelled LRASM-B

also googlefu, inside
Air Force asks Lockheed Martin to build three more LRASM anti-ship missile systems for high-priority targets
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

:
"Since LRASM started development a decade ago, however, hypersonic cruise missiles able to fly faster than five times the speed of sound have become one of the Pentagon's top priorities. This has the potential to limit overall LRASM production numbers."

time will tell the rest

Brumby · Sep 17, 2019

Jura said:
here we go, it's dated 12/04/14

and around that time I saw animations, fairy talish looking, purporting to shown ESM on LRASMs (now I'm not going to look for any LockMart legends);

five years have passed and now it's

"The LRASM is derived from the AGM-158B Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile-Extended Range (JASSM-ER), adding only a new radio frequency seeker for terminal phase guidance."

inside
Lockheed To Increase Range Of LRASM
Jul 9, 2019
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

so I asked Yesterday at 9:40 PM

please note that's a Yes or No question

BAE systems is the provider of the ESM product.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Brumby · Sep 17, 2019

Jura said:
ManQ can you please stop posting cartoons I mean I disagreed with Brumby yesterday here, but cartoons are unnecessary to make a point, aren't they?

thank you for consideration

You have to understand their mindset revolves around cartoons. Dealing with facts is troubling because it requires dealing with reality. Resorting to cartoons allow some form of escapism. You just have to refer to the current ongoing conversation in the J-20 thread that is revolving around a cartoon and what it might mean and then the attempts to extrapolate or infer from it what it may possibly mean.

Brumby · Sep 17, 2019

Tam said:
Do you understand that every frequency in the EMF spectrum bends differently? Look at the way light bends with a prism or mirror. That's the same way with RF. When you optimize shaping against X-band, it won't be optimized against others. The X-band RF photon might be directed towards the place you wanted, but the S-band RF photo will bounce on a different path. Furthermore you keep quoting RCS without zero context of the bandwidth, because something at 0.01m2 RCS at X-band is not going to be that figure at S-band and maybe much higher. Shaping is also resonant with the RF frequency band hence why if you want an aircraft "invisible" against the low frequency wavelengths used by AEW aircraft, its going to have to look a lot more like a B-2 than an F-22. Another problem of the way you keep quoting RCS is that 0.01m2 RCS might also be frontal. Do you track a ballistic missile on its frontal profile? No. What might be 0.01m2 RCS on the front is NOT going to be that way the moment you look at it from offset and from the side. That figure is going to grow bigger from the side, and factor in that you have radars of different frequencies that is going to track the missiles including long range long frequency ones from all directions, I seriously doubt the 0.01m2 RCS holds. The same way with the LRASM, or any other missile.

Have you sent your memo to the PRC to drop the J-20 program and to make the J-31 into a B-2 like design? What is your point?

Brumby · Sep 17, 2019

AndrewS said:
True, but as I pointed out, the US Navy has somehow managed long-range shoot downs of sea-skimming Tomahawks with NICA-FA (using the E-2 UHF AESA and AEGIS)
Logically, that should be technologically feasible.

So there's no point arguing the point here. Go tell the US Navy that their press releases are a big lie.

Read carefully.

I said IF the LRASM is as GOOD as you say, THEN the Chinese Navy COULD develop their own LRASM missiles.
That is not to say the Chinese Navy WILL develop LRASMs.

As I've pointed out, it appears that the PLAN have decided (for many years) that it isn't worth developing stealthy subsonic cruise missiles.
Instead we've seen development of cutting edge hypersonic missiles.

Which shouldn't be a surprise since the Pentagon is now publicly saying hypersonics are way better than slow subsonic missiles.

Again, there's no point arguing the point here. If you don't agree, go tell the Pentagon that their leadership is publicly spouting lies from their mouths.

The conversation was about LRASM and not Tomahawks or hypersonics. If you find it painful to deal with the LRASM subject then move on. I have no issue with it.

manqiangrexue · Sep 17, 2019

Brumby said:
You have to understand their mindset revolves around cartoons. Dealing with facts is troubling because it requires dealing with reality. Resorting to cartoons allow some form of escapism.

Says the person posting cartoons trying to illustrate the range on how far one classified machine would spot another classified machine. My cartoon was to add color and my post would read exactly the same with or without it. You actually rely on cartoons to make your point because there is no reliable data on the stuff you're trying to convince people of. This is actual escapism.

Brumby said:
You just have to refer to the current ongoing conversation in the J-20 thread that is revolving around a cartoon and what it might mean and then the attempts to extrapolate or infer from it what it may possibly mean.

I think we all understand the importance of those cartoons. A cartoon shows J-20 with WS-10, 2 weeks later, we see one. A cartoon shows J-10 with TCV, 2 weeks later, we see one. For someone to equate those cartoons with an extraneous meme added for color reflects very poorly on his "intelligence," although at this point, no further evidence is really needed on that front.

Jura The idiot · Sep 18, 2019

Brumby said:
BAE systems is the provider of the ESM product.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

LOL you're kidding me with sales talk after Yesterday at 3:42 PM

Jura said:
here we go, it's dated 12/04/14

and around that time I saw animations, fairy talish looking, purporting to shown ESM on LRASMs (now I'm not going to look for any LockMart legends);

five years have passed and now it's

"The LRASM is derived from the AGM-158B Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile-Extended Range (JASSM-ER), adding only a new radio frequency seeker for terminal phase guidance."

inside
Lockheed To Increase Range Of LRASM
Jul 9, 2019
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

so I asked Yesterday at 9:40 PM

please note that's a Yes or No question

EDIT perhaps you didn't get by "ESM" Monday at 9:40 PM I meant

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Jura said:
does the LRASM feature Electronic Support Measures?

(please don't quote me wiki that says it does -- I've heard the LRASM is just the JASSM-ER with a seeker for homing, without ESM)

did you?

AndrewS · Sep 18, 2019

Brumby said:
The conversation was about LRASM and not Tomahawks or hypersonics. If you find it painful to deal with the LRASM subject then move on. I have no issue with it.

I've already addressed the logic behind LRASM deployment.

The key arguments are that the Chinese have skipped development of subsonic stealth missiles, despite this being technologically easy. After all, we see numerous stealth drones, stealth fighters and a stealth bomber which are way more complex.

Instead, they've gone the difficult route of developing cutting edge hypersonic missiles.

If an LRASM missile was as effective as Lockheed claims, China would already have fielded an equivalent, but there is not a single rumour of such development.

Which is not a surprise as the Pentagon has publicly agreed that hypersonics are better than subsonic missiles.

Why don't you deal with these facts.

And I write to disabuse the wider readership of this thread, of the notion that LRASM is a magic weapon.

Future PLAN naval and carrier operations

Jura The idiot

General

Tirdent

Junior Member

Jura The idiot

General

Brumby

Major

Brumby

Major

Brumby

Major

Brumby

Major

manqiangrexue

Brigadier

Jura The idiot

General

AndrewS

Brigadier