Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    US Navy Anti-Ship Missiles

    Share

    NickM
    Sergeant
    Sergeant

    Posts : 184
    Points : 131
    Join date : 2012-11-09
    Location : NYC,USA / Essex,UK

    US Navy Anti-Ship Missiles

    Post  NickM on Tue Feb 18, 2014 12:24 pm

    GarryB wrote: numbers game... they had rather more platforms that could carry Harpoon than Tomahawk so it made sense to go with the numbers missile.

    Also the technological superiority of US cruise missiles .

    Lockheed's long range Anti Ship missile uses (1) Passive Radio Frequency ; (2) Mid Course Guidance and (3) IR terminal homing.

    Now is there any anti cruise missile system deployed in any Russian or Chinese or Indian battleships that can counter such a missile ? Obviously not .

    Werewolf
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5390
    Points : 5639
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: US Navy Anti-Ship Missiles

    Post  Werewolf on Tue Feb 18, 2014 10:20 pm

    NickM wrote:
    GarryB wrote: numbers game... they had rather more platforms that could carry Harpoon than Tomahawk so it made sense to go with the numbers missile.

    Also the technological superiority of US cruise missiles .

    Lockheed's long range Anti Ship missile uses (1) Passive Radio Frequency ; (2) Mid Course Guidance and (3) IR terminal homing.

    Now is there any anti cruise missile system deployed in any Russian or Chinese or Indian battleships that can counter such a missile ? Obviously not .

    Cruise Missiles are very slow and such targets are rather "easy" to intercept by ships and their defensive capabilities they possess.
    Kashtan and before that TOR missiles which were designed to intercept incoming threats. Unless those missiles are not Iskander type in engagement or phase-end guiding than its not a bigger threat than russian cruise missiles would be to US ships, actually it's vice versa since defensive technologies in russia have a higher priority and there for a higher capabilities than in any other country.

    TR1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5840
    Points : 5892
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: US Navy Anti-Ship Missiles

    Post  TR1 on Wed Feb 19, 2014 1:40 am

    Nah Werewolf, its American, it cant be countered by teh Asiatic missile systems.

    Asians are famously bad at math so they can't make systems to hit moving targets.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15450
    Points : 16157
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: US Navy Anti-Ship Missiles

    Post  GarryB on Wed Feb 19, 2014 10:15 am

    Now is there any anti cruise missile system deployed in any Russian or Chinese or Indian battleships that can counter such a missile ? Obviously not .

    Neither the Russian, Chinese, or Indian Navies have Battleships.

    The smallest Russian Corvette however is fitted with air defence systems able to defeat long range cruise missiles at medium ranges using both SAM and CIWS.

    They all also have extensive IR decoy and masking systems that nearly instantly deliver an enormous cloud of IR opaque smoke with burning elements within it to form a large IR target near the ship or boat that the incoming missile will find to be much larger and rather more attractive a target.

    BTW the old export model SS-N-2 Styx came in two models with active radar homing and passive IR guidance.

    The domestic model had both an IR sensor and active radar guidance.

    I believe India used the IR guided models effectively against land targets in Pakistan that included large oil storage containers that had been heated by the sun during the day and represented an IR contrasting target for the anti ship missiles to be used effectively against them.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    Stealthflanker
    Major
    Major

    Posts : 808
    Points : 894
    Join date : 2009-08-04
    Age : 28
    Location : Indonesia

    Re: US Navy Anti-Ship Missiles

    Post  Stealthflanker on Tue Aug 05, 2014 1:39 pm

    NickM wrote:
    Also the technological superiority of US cruise missiles .

    Lockheed's long range Anti Ship missile uses (1) Passive Radio Frequency ; (2) Mid Course Guidance and (3) IR terminal homing.

    Now is there any anti cruise missile system deployed in any Russian or Chinese or Indian battleships that can counter such a missile ? Obviously not .

    1.Been in feature of Russian missiles since 1960's perhaps
    2.See above
    3.See above

    I don't see those 1,2,3 features are preventing US missiles from being intercepted by AK-630 or Shtil.

    Mike E
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2789
    Points : 2853
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    Re: US Navy Anti-Ship Missiles

    Post  Mike E on Tue Aug 05, 2014 8:11 pm

    Stealthflanker wrote:
    NickM wrote:
    Also the technological superiority of US cruise missiles .

    Lockheed's long range Anti Ship missile uses (1) Passive Radio Frequency ; (2) Mid Course Guidance and (3) IR terminal homing.

    Now is there any anti cruise missile system deployed in any Russian or Chinese or Indian battleships that can counter such a missile ? Obviously not .

    1.Been in feature of Russian missiles since 1960's perhaps
    2.See above
    3.See above

    I don't see those 1,2,3 features are preventing US missiles from being intercepted by AK-630 or Shtil.

    Especially when the cruise missiles are large and slow targets. The LRASM isn't going to do much for the Navy, just a simple replacement of the outdated Tomahawk.

    magnumcromagnon
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 4468
    Points : 4659
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

    Re: US Navy Anti-Ship Missiles

    Post  magnumcromagnon on Tue Aug 05, 2014 11:19 pm

    Mike E wrote:
    Stealthflanker wrote:
    NickM wrote:
    Also the technological superiority of US cruise missiles .

    Lockheed's long range Anti Ship missile uses (1) Passive Radio Frequency ; (2) Mid Course Guidance and (3) IR terminal homing.

    Now is there any anti cruise missile system deployed in any Russian or Chinese or Indian battleships that can counter such a missile ? Obviously not .

    1.Been in feature of Russian missiles since 1960's perhaps
    2.See above
    3.See above

    I don't see those 1,2,3 features are preventing US missiles from being intercepted by AK-630 or Shtil.

    Especially when the cruise missiles are large and slow targets. The LRASM isn't going to do much for the Navy, just a simple replacement of the outdated Tomahawk.

    But surprisingly enough no supersonic anti-ship missiles in US inventories.

    Mike E
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2789
    Points : 2853
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    Re: US Navy Anti-Ship Missiles

    Post  Mike E on Tue Aug 05, 2014 11:44 pm

    I think the US Navy values air-defense over anything else when it comes to their "destroyers". That would explain the lack of advanced supersonic AShMs, and their focus on the ESSM and SM-6 etc. That being said, I believe that they rely on their sub fleet to do the "dirty work" and sink other fleets (not saying they could or couldn't).

    Supersonic AShMs also tend to have less range, which is something the US navy likes. 

    With all of that in mind, I have no clue why the Navy doesn't even bother to develop better AShMs. If war were to ever break out between the U.S. and Russia, that is one area where RU has a huge advantage over them. Another weird thing, is that RU still has better SAMs in their Navy fleets versus the US Navy. Sort of backwards considering all the work the US Navy is putting into that area. 

     russia

    magnumcromagnon
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 4468
    Points : 4659
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

    Re: US Navy Anti-Ship Missiles

    Post  magnumcromagnon on Wed Aug 06, 2014 12:32 am

    Mike E wrote:I think the US Navy values air-defense over anything else when it comes to their "destroyers". That would explain the lack of advanced supersonic AShMs, and their focus on the ESSM and SM-6 etc. That being said, I believe that they rely on their sub fleet to do the "dirty work" and sink other fleets (not saying they could or couldn't).

    Supersonic AShMs also tend to have less range, which is something the US navy likes. 

    With all of that in mind, I have no clue why the Navy doesn't even bother to develop better AShMs. If war were to ever break out between the U.S. and Russia, that is one area where RU has a huge advantage over them. Another weird thing, is that RU still has better SAMs in their Navy fleets versus the US Navy. Sort of backwards considering all the work the US Navy is putting into that area. 

     russia

    Long range is a good attribute, except the missiles have to be able to hit their targets, and subsonic missiles are much easier to engage, and considering how attack subs are the main vehicle for that as you said it actually makes more sense to develop them for your subs than for your surface fleet. Having supersonic AShM's for attack makes more sense because the U.S. attack sub fleet is already considered a stealthy asset already, and the supersonic AShm's will be harder targets to neutralize and will also have superior penetration compared to subsonic Harpoons due to increased kinetic energy. A U.S. attack sub could fire 6 newly developed supersonic AShM's with 300 km range, and while that's not as good as a AShM Tomahawk range of 450 km (which is measly compared to land attack Tomahawk), by the time the supersonic AShM hits a surface vessel a U.S. attack sub could be long gone. Range is good, but speed is better!

    And I agree, the US Navy should develop better AShM's, because they're one of the more cost-effective systems a navy could have! The cost of buying, building, maintaining a carrier fleet for a year would cost a lot, the same amount of money spent on AShM's would buy you enough missiles to sink all the world's carrier fleets several times over!

    Mike E
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2789
    Points : 2853
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    Re: US Navy Anti-Ship Missiles

    Post  Mike E on Wed Aug 06, 2014 2:50 am

    The best is a mixture of both range and speed. Imagine something like a "supersonic tipped" Kalibr that has a range of over 1000 km!

     - You hit the nail on the head. The US navy must be smoking something!

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15450
    Points : 16157
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: US Navy Anti-Ship Missiles

    Post  GarryB on Wed Aug 06, 2014 9:49 am

    The US Navy neglects its anti air and anti ship capability for the same reason the US Army has neglected its air defence and ATBM capabilities till after 1991.. and even then the PAC-3 Patriot is a limited weapon compared with its Soviet and Russian equivalents.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    MotherlandCalls
    Private
    Private

    Posts : 8
    Points : 8
    Join date : 2014-08-03

    Re: US Navy Anti-Ship Missiles

    Post  MotherlandCalls on Wed Aug 06, 2014 7:58 pm

    GarryB wrote:The US Navy neglects its anti air and anti ship capability for the same reason the US Army has neglected its air defence and ATBM capabilities till after 1991.. and even then the PAC-3 Patriot is a limited weapon compared with its Soviet and Russian equivalents.

    I think it's because they were so preoccupied with getting all that opium from Afghanistan and fighting the Iraqi's the last 10+ years that they put all their time, money and resources into bunker busters, tanks, infantry fighting vehicles and soldier equipment. There was no threat from those enemies towards their ships or aircraft for the most part so they chose to neglect the aspect of their defence seeing as they were so preoccupied with the middle east and not even thinking about us or the Chinese.

    AlfaT8
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1149
    Points : 1162
    Join date : 2013-02-02

    Re: US Navy Anti-Ship Missiles

    Post  AlfaT8 on Thu Aug 07, 2014 2:31 am

    MotherlandCalls wrote:
    GarryB wrote:The US Navy neglects its anti air and anti ship capability for the same reason the US Army has neglected its air defence and ATBM capabilities till after 1991.. and even then the PAC-3 Patriot is a limited weapon compared with its Soviet and Russian equivalents.

    I think it's because they were so preoccupied with getting all that opium from Afghanistan and fighting the Iraqi's the last 10+ years that they put all their time, money and resources into bunker busters, tanks, infantry fighting vehicles and soldier equipment. There was no threat from those enemies towards their ships or aircraft for the most part so they chose to neglect the aspect of their defence seeing as they were so preoccupied with the middle east and not even thinking about us or the Chinese.
    The U.S and friends (NATO) remain unopposed all thanks to the MTCR Treaty, although i am not sure why China hasn't capitalize on the +300km range Cruise/Anti-ship missile market????? confused 

    MotherlandCalls
    Private
    Private

    Posts : 8
    Points : 8
    Join date : 2014-08-03

    Re: US Navy Anti-Ship Missiles

    Post  MotherlandCalls on Thu Aug 07, 2014 2:49 am

    AlfaT8 wrote:
    MotherlandCalls wrote:
    GarryB wrote:The US Navy neglects its anti air and anti ship capability for the same reason the US Army has neglected its air defence and ATBM capabilities till after 1991.. and even then the PAC-3 Patriot is a limited weapon compared with its Soviet and Russian equivalents.

    I think it's because they were so preoccupied with getting all that opium from Afghanistan and fighting the Iraqi's the last 10+ years that they put all their time, money and resources into bunker busters, tanks, infantry fighting vehicles and soldier equipment. There was no threat from those enemies towards their ships or aircraft for the most part so they chose to neglect the aspect of their defence seeing as they were so preoccupied with the middle east and not even thinking about us or the Chinese.
    The U.S and friends (NATO) remain unopposed all thanks to the MTCR Treaty, although i am not sure why China hasn't capitalize on the +300km range Cruise/Anti-ship missile market????? confused 

    I'm sure they'll get around to it eventually. The Chinese military at this point seem to be mass developing everything under the sun at the same time. I have literally lost count of all the ships that they've laid down in the last five years and all the air superiority fighters and carrier-based fighters that are in development or currently being mass produced. Then you have their aircraft carrier program which is in full swing and their new ballistic missile submarines they're in the process of creating.

    They're a busy bunch.

    Mike E
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2789
    Points : 2853
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    US Navy ASHMs

    Post  Mike E on Tue Aug 12, 2014 7:06 am

    AlfaT8 wrote:
    MotherlandCalls wrote:
    GarryB wrote:The US Navy neglects its anti air and anti ship capability for the same reason the US Army has neglected its air defence and ATBM capabilities till after 1991.. and even then the PAC-3 Patriot is a limited weapon compared with its Soviet and Russian equivalents.

    I think it's because they were so preoccupied with getting all that opium from Afghanistan and fighting the Iraqi's the last 10+ years that they put all their time, money and resources into bunker busters, tanks, infantry fighting vehicles and soldier equipment. There was no threat from those enemies towards their ships or aircraft for the most part so they chose to neglect the aspect of their defence seeing as they were so preoccupied with the middle east and not even thinking about us or the Chinese.
    The U.S and friends (NATO) remain unopposed all thanks to the MTCR Treaty, although i am not sure why China hasn't capitalize on the +300km range Cruise/Anti-ship missile market????? confused 

    China has plenty of 300 km+ AShM missiles, some are even supersonic. Here's are short list; YJ-12 - said to have a range of 400 km and speed up to Mach 4, HN-3 - claimed to have a range of around 3,000 km and is subsonic. There are literally to many to list! That being said, most of them are upgrades of upgrades of upgrades of the downgraded version of a Soviet missile... That or it is possible some figures are "overconfident" aka lies.

    Problem with the U.S. Navy is that they believe lots of large ships with outdated and crappy (in general) weapons equals the "best" navy in the world. Why this is I don't know, probably has something to do with their obsession of "power projections" (Yeah, cause threatening a bunch of barefoot "jihadists" with 60 year old weapons makes you look strong!!! Laughing) - I've been "talking" to someone on YT about this, and I think I convinced them... That's not relevant but whatever...

    They also believe that the LRASM will stand a chance against modern CIWS systems and missiles, I think that says it all! - It is almost like they want Russia to have the best equipment...

    Mike E
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2789
    Points : 2853
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    Re: US Navy Anti-Ship Missiles

    Post  Mike E on Sun Feb 08, 2015 1:14 am

    American media is wetting themselves over how a Tomahawk AShM hit a target using guidance from an aircraft... Claiming it is a "game changer". - The Soviets did the same.... with satellites in the 80's.

    magnumcromagnon
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 4468
    Points : 4659
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

    Re: US Navy Anti-Ship Missiles

    Post  magnumcromagnon on Sun Feb 08, 2015 1:23 am

    Mike E wrote:American media is wetting themselves over how a Tomahawk AShM hit a target using guidance from an aircraft... Claiming it is a "game changer". - The Soviets did the same.... with satellites in the 80's.

    Really? They're hyperventilating over that? Fighter aircraft have been able to do that for decades, is it just clueless media figures?

    Mike E
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2789
    Points : 2853
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    Re: US Navy Anti-Ship Missiles

    Post  Mike E on Sun Feb 08, 2015 1:29 am

    magnumcromagnon wrote:
    Mike E wrote:American media is wetting themselves over how a Tomahawk AShM hit a target using guidance from an aircraft... Claiming it is a "game changer". - The Soviets did the same.... with satellites in the 80's.

    Really? They're hyperventilating over that? Fighter aircraft have been able to do that for decades, is it just clueless media figures?
    Guess so... Here is the link. http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Security-Industry/2015/02/06/Tomahawk-hits-moving-target-using-synthetic-guidance/6721423241784/

    collegeboy16
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1207
    Points : 1234
    Join date : 2012-10-05
    Age : 20
    Location : Roanapur

    Re: US Navy Anti-Ship Missiles

    Post  collegeboy16 on Sun Feb 08, 2015 4:14 am

    Mike E wrote:American media is wetting themselves over how a Tomahawk AShM hit a target using guidance from an aircraft... Claiming it is a "game changer". - The Soviets did the same.... with satellites in the 80's.
    hahahaha, thats cute. say hello to rorsat and legenda targeting sat used to search for warships and drive home granit missiles respectively- and those were back then in the 70s and 80s, who knows how much better the stuff has gotten since then.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15450
    Points : 16157
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Tomahawk AShM

    Post  GarryB on Sun Feb 08, 2015 5:01 am

    Improvements in datalinks and the reduction in size and performance of electronics alone suggests what the americans would call game changing performance improvements.

    reduction in size of Onyx at 2.5-3 tons depending on model from 7 tons for Granit, with similar range and higher flight speed.... and in a half a decade or so Zirconium, probably in the 3-4 ton weight range with hypersonic speeds using a scramjet engine able to be launched from every new and upgraded Russian naval vessel from Corvette to Carrier...


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    George1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 9422
    Points : 9914
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: US Navy Anti-Ship Missiles

    Post  George1 on Tue Mar 10, 2015 1:38 pm

    DARPA's Anti-Ship Missile Still Less Deadly Than Chinese ‘Carrier Killer’

    While DARPA has developed a long-awaited anti-ship missile for the United States Navy, the new weapon will be no match for one of the threats it was designed to counter, China’s so-called “carrier killer” missile.

    At 15 tons and 35 feet tall, China’s DF-21D Dong Feng missile is rumored to be able to travel at speeds as fast as Mach 10 and has an effective range of up to 1,200 miles. In the event of a conflict, the weapon would pose a major threat to US aircraft carriers off the coast of Taiwan.
    Concept art of a Raytheon small satellite in orbit

    In response to the Navy’s call for a similarly sophisticated weapon system, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency spent years developing its own Long Range Anti-Ship Missile. According to DARPA, LRASM aims "to provide a leap ahead in US surface warfare capability."

    The missile can operate in antiaccess/area denial or A2/AD environments with robust anti-missile defense and fierce electronic warfare with the ability for "jamming" guidance systems. LRASM can also operate independently and under remote guidance and survive GPS jamming.

    The missile, designed by defense contractor Lockheed Martin, can guide itself to targets using "autonomous guidance algorithms" even in the absence of remote control or GPS by pinpointing strike targets independently.

    LRASM has completed three successful flight tests, according to DARPA, and is targeted for a deployment date sometime in 2018.

    As another countermeasure to China’s “carrier killer,” the Pentagon paid Raytheon millions of dollars to develop a RIM-162 ESSM "Evolved SeaSparrow" antimissile missile. The hope is that such a defensive weapon will be able to shoot down DF-21D, despite its high speed and high trajectory.

    In a keynote address on American Society of Naval Engineers’ Day on March 4, Sean Stackley, the Navy’s acquisition chief, stressed the importance of modernizing ships in the fleet.

    To help reach that goal, the Navy has embarked on a 30-year research and development plan to ensure that it remains not only the largest such force in the world, but also the most powerful.

    Read more: http://sputniknews.com/news/20150310/1019279301.html#ixzz3TzAwEup2

    max steel
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2980
    Points : 3014
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

    Re: US Navy Anti-Ship Missiles

    Post  max steel on Wed Mar 11, 2015 5:41 am

    Based on AGM-158B JASSM-ER - have long range up to 1200km and low signatures but subsonic. The time in automatic artillery an small calibre defence missile area - in 3 times more speed near target 0.3km/s than for BRAHMOS (1km/s).
    LRASM-B - similar BrahMos project, was canceled. I suppose they attempt use electronic warfare onboard - in all other cases this missile will killed. Also as a factor surviveability US seem hi maneurability but as I see this is limited by construction of cruise missile and poor for this purpose (all for long range) aerodynamic scheme.LRASM is missile for mass attack low-defended ground targets from sea .

    Very important moment - all US-made cruise missile, modern planes, drones and missiles large scale have US-manned backdoors. They can launch and moderate wars by remote control that weapon which they sold.




    Can you compare Brahmos and LRASM ? Which one is better in today's modern defence systems ?

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15450
    Points : 16157
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: US Navy Anti-Ship Missiles

    Post  GarryB on Wed Mar 11, 2015 8:42 am

    Basically they represent two attack profiles that would suit two different situations.

    The long range stealth option assumes you can detect the targets ships at enormous ranges reliably and correctly identify them.

    it is a sneaky attack method that relies on surprise in the hope that by the time the enemy knows they are under attack it is too late.

    the high speed attack mode assumes the enemy is on guard and expecting an attack, so high speed is used to try to sneak through the layers of the enemies defences before they have time to react effectively... it assumes it will be detected fairly early in the attack but tries to use speed to evade interception and to penetrate the ships defences and defeat the ship.

    To be honest I think the high speed attack is the most realistic as modern ships have an array of active and passive sensors that can detect incoming threats, so high speed makes it harder for them to defeat your attack.

    For India having Brahmos means that most of its neighbours will have serious problems keeping their navies safe from Brahmos... it wont be a perfect super laser beam killer, but as shown in the Falklands war, on paper the British Navy should have been invulnerable to the Exocet... for a start they had it in their own inventory so it should not have been any surprise for them, yet time and again these simple subsonic low flying missiles defeated ship defences and sunk ships... I suspect the French gave the British the codes to disable the warheads of the missiles because none of the exocets that hit British ships had warheads that exploded on impact when they were supposed to... most just started fires which ended up doing lethal damage to several ships.

    For the US however a sneaky stealthy missile actually suits them better... they wont be involved in full on wars or wars of survival... they haven't fired a Harpoon in anger so far as I know and likely wont fire one of these new missiles either.

    If they do the naval version of Pantsir has MMW and CM wave radar and thermal optics and can defeat targets from about 50m out to 4km with guns from sea level up to about 3km altitude and from 2m off the wave tops to 15km in altitude and from about 1.2km out to perhaps 45km in the latest Pantsir-SM missile model.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    max steel
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2980
    Points : 3014
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

    Lockheed Wins $322M for Long Range Anti-Ship Missile(LRASM)

    Post  max steel on Tue May 17, 2016 1:17 am

    Lockheed Wins $322M for Long Range Anti-Ship Missile(LRASM)

    Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control, Orlando, Florida, is being awarded a $321,847,403 cost-plus-incentive-fee contract for research and development in support of the Long Range Anti-Ship Missile (LRASM) integration and test phase.

    The integration and test phase completes all remaining hardware and software detailed design; systemically retiring any open risks; building and testing missile test articles to verify compliance with capability requirements; and preparing for production and/or deployment.

    This phase also:
    -- completes full system integration;
    -- incorporates an affordable and executable LRASM manufacturing process into the existing Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile – Extended Range production process;
    -- examines and defines the logistics footprint;
    -- designs for producibility;
    -- ensures affordability;
    -- protects critical program information by implementing appropriate techniques such as anti-tamper and cybersecurity; and
    -- demonstrates system integration, interoperability, safety and utility.

    Work will be performed in Orlando, Florida (60 percent); Troy, Alabama (30 percent); and Ocala, Florida (10 percent), and is expected to be completed in August, 2019.

    Fiscal 2016 research, development, test and evaluation (Navy) funds in the amount of $42,000,000 will be obligated at time of award, none of which will expire at the end of the fiscal year.

    This contract was not competitively procured pursuant to Federal Acquisition Regulation 6.302-1.

    The Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River, Maryland, is the contracting activity (N00019-16-C-0035).

    Sponsored content

    Re: US Navy Anti-Ship Missiles

    Post  Sponsored content Today at 6:41 pm


      Current date/time is Sat Dec 03, 2016 6:41 pm