BAE Systems has received a $60 million contract to deliver additional advanced missile seekers for LRASM.

BAE Systems received a $60 million contract from Lockheed Martin to manufacture and deliver additional advanced missile seekers for the Long Range Anti-Ship Missile (LRASM). The seeker comprises long-range sensors and targeting technology that help the stealthy missile find and engage protected maritime targets in challenging electromagnetic environments.

“Our warfighters need resilient, long-range precision strike capabilities to compete with modern adversaries,” said Bruce Konigsberg, Radio Frequency Sensors product area director at BAE Systems.

“We’re proud to partner with Lockheed Martin in delivering this distinct competitive advantage to U.S. warfighters.”

The firm also say that LRASM combines ‘extended range with increased survivability and lethality to deliver long-range precision strike capabilities’.

“LRASM is designed to detect and destroy specific targets within groups of ships by employing advanced technologies that reduce dependence on intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance platforms, network links, and GPS navigation in contested environments.

This LRASM seeker contract continues the transition of the program from Accelerated Acquisition to Low Rate Production. BAE Systems has delivered more than 50 systems to date that have demonstrated excellent technical performance over multiple test events. The company also is working to make the seeker system smaller, more capable, and more efficient to produce.”

Work on the LRASM sensor will be conducted at BAE Systems’ facilities in Wayne, New Jersey; Greenlawn, New York; and Nashua, New Hampshire.

5 1 vote
Article Rating
Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Captain P Wash

again, great news for BAE.

Daniele Mandelli

Never mind the constant debate over on the Phalanx thread that QEC needs SAM and more Phalanx.

THIS is what the RN should be spending it’s money on. An ASM for all escorts, P8, F35.


It is an impressive weapon. The Government here in Australia announced mid year that LRASM was being procured for the RAAF (believed to be approx 200 missiles), the project budget is A$800m. Initial fitment to F/A-18F (the USN is planning to integrate onto P-8A shortly), that opens the door for RAAF and RAF Poseidon too. Potential for external carriage on F-35, maybe as part of Block 4 software update. LRASM has also been test fired from Mk 41 VLS, I believe it has also been tested using box/canister deck mounted launchers, and lastly I did read once that it was… Read more »

Daniele Mandelli

Cheers John. Our Aus cousins have got themselves organised.

Good to see.


LRASM won’t be operational aboard the P-8 until 2026. That’s the timeline.


Very true, it’s a great weapon. I read that it isn’t officially qualified for Mk41, but it’s been proven to work (using a modified TLAM software patch, to my limited understanding) from them and from angled cannisters too. The question then is simply how much the qualification costs. The USN surprisingly haven’t moved very fast to do this, but I think that’s because they’ve never used their VLS for ASMs anyway. They’ve only ever had two quad-pack cannisters for Harpoon on their Burkes, same as our escorts. I haven’t read about the sub-launched option though, that’s cool. To be honest… Read more »

Steve R

Add Typhoon to that as well, as our most numerous combat aircraft.

Daniele Mandelli

Yes, obviously! A bad ommision from me. All fast air and escorts.


Agreed, we need teeth like this before we need more protection on QEC. That said, as we’ve spoken about in the past, I’ll take Harpoon Block II+ now and F/CASW later instead of LRASM- good a weapon as it is. I am a firm believer in supporting domestic industry, and I am confident enough that an advanced sub-sonic design will see us through until ~2030. On top of that, government have dumped a large amount of money on MOD, for which I’m very happy. The RN have largely been great about spending their slice wisely over the last little while.… Read more »

john melling

Exactly and the Anti Ship Missile selection has just been too slow There are several new ASMs out there… why are they dragging it on!? It just needs to be better than HARPOON Better range, warhead and one or two of them are with a bit of a land-attack option which is a good option If they choose LRASM then they might as well stop the Perseus project so that leads me to think LRASM is off the menu… To me, It feels like because don’t have a dedicated Anti – Ship vessel much like the T45 we use as… Read more »


I have to agree with your comments regarding LRASM and Perseus, think that NSM/JSM might just prove to be a better fit. Especially if we are still intent on developing Perseus, although, having said that I do like what LRASM has to offer. A little bit of top trumps I know…


The big step forward for perseus will be its speed, we need an option hitting mach 4/5 to counter missiles already in service with Russia and possibly China. But I’m sure it will cost an absolute fortune so we might need to supliment them with missiles like LSARM and NSM because harpoon just doesn’t cut it in terms of range, sophistication and stealth.


Wouldn’t disagree with any of that, just can’t see MOD going with Harpoon, if they have a £200 mill budget. We will see no doubt….

Steve R

I personally think we should go with Harpoon Block II as an interim missile. Any of the other choices might as well be permanent and long term.


If the strategy is very limited numbers of an interim solution then IMHO the choice should be the one that has the best chance of delivering what it says it is going to do with the minimum volume of units per strike at a reasonable price. That for me would mean leaning towards either the NSM or the SAAB options and probably added to CSG allocated T45 / T23.

Once a. Long term home grown solution is available (for type26) then the 5 x interim solution sets can be cannister fixed to type 31.


I think we should go with the best value option for interim which appears to be the harpoon upgrade and save funds for the next gen missile.


LRASM seems like the logical choice for future needs given we have F35 and P8 in our inventory, plus T26 is getting mk41 vls. Is it ready for canister launch though? If not it isn’t much use for the T23 or potentially T31, although we could add vls to the latter. What isn’t clear is the direction of FCASW, will it survive Brexit, will the French go their own way, and why we apparently want a stealthy subsonic version while the french want hypersonic. Surely LRASM already provides what we need in the stealthy subsonic domain. I say go with… Read more »