BAE Systems say it worked closely with Lockheed Martin to deliver Long-Range Anti-Ship Missiles (LRASM) to the US Air Force, achieving Early Operational Capability for the B1-B bomber ahead of schedule.

The US Air Force accepted delivery of production LRASM units following successful simulation, integration, and flight tests that demonstrated the missile’s mission readiness.

“We’re quickly delivering critical capabilities to warfighters to meet their urgent operational needs,” said Bruce Konigsberg, Radio Frequency (RF) Sensors product area director at BAE Systems.

“Our sensor systems provide U.S. warfighters with a strike capability that lets them engage protected, high-value maritime targets from safe distances. The missile provides a critical advantage to U.S. warfighters.”

BAE Systems say its long-range sensor and targeting technology enables LRASM to detect and engage protected ships in all weather conditions, day or night, without relying on external intelligence and navigation data.

BAE Systems and Lockheed Martin are working closely together to further mature the LRASM technology. The companies recently signed a contract for the production of more than 50 additional sensors and are working to achieve EOC on the U.S. Navy’s F/A-18E/F Super Hornet in 2019.

The firm also say that the LRASM sensor technology builds on BAE Systems experience in electronic warfare, signal processing, and targeting technologies, and demonstrates the company’s ability to apply its world-class EW technology to small platforms.

George Allison
George Allison
George has a degree in Cyber Security from Glasgow Caledonian University and has a keen interest in naval and cyber security matters and has appeared on national radio and television to discuss current events. George is on Twitter at @geoallison
Twitter

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

27 COMMENTS

    • Probably, pretty certain I have seen some in their boneyards. I wonder if we would have the infrastructure and finances to maintain/operate them.

        • Wouldn’t it be a bit easier to get hold of some F18’s? I reckon that the RAF would love to have some G models on the books, and we could always get the Australians to fly them for us.

          • The RA,F would use it’s entire annual budget trying to keep a handful of old expensive to own B1’s operational!

            These old bombers have a less than stellar availability rate to day the least…

        • At this point, I would settle for the Mk 41 VLS on the Type 26 to be ‘fitted for’ and actual armed with the LRASM…. then again, a Mk 41 VLS / LRASM combo would be a great add for all the Type 45’s.

          • LRSAM is an air launched weapon only there is no ship launched variant only some lashed up company prototype shots.The U.S. navy has shown no interest in a ship variant so the UK would have to pay to develop and support it.

          • If I’m wrong I stand corrected, but I thought the LRASM was designed to be compatible with the Mk 41 and canister launch (similar to the Harpoon). I do agree that if the US Navy isn’t going to purchase the ship variant we don’t want to have to pay to develop it.

          • Lockhart lashed up a test part using a booster from another weapon and test fired it from a land based MK41 to prove the concept could be developed to the Navy,they chose not to go forward with this as they have many other options such as Harpoon,NSM,SM6 and a new version of Tomahawk with a new active passive RF seeker that can go after ships at long range.

          • LRASM is at TRL 8, not just lashed together as you suggest. Its been test fired at sea from the US Self Defense Test Ship. With the number of T26 variants being built around the world, LRASM would make an excellent dual role ASuW and NFS Land attack missile, and as suggested, fit Mk41 into T45 could resolve a number of their inadequacies. Carry a Silo full and you have a genuine multi-mission vessel with acquisition and support cost minimised, especially if 3 navies buy in bulk.

          • There is no program of record for a ship launched LRSM it is air launched only.For the RN to fit to type 45 would require considerable integration and development costs its simply stupid to suggest it.If the RN want an interim weapon to bridge the gap to the new MBDA missile then either NSM or Block 5 Tomahawk are the only sensible options.Personally I believe Type 45 needs more anti air weapons so would fit 16 more silver launchers loaded with the Astor 30 N T.

          • Not sure of your research… nearly 3 seconds to find this video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jG5Za-BVqFE
            There are approximately 32 Type T26 GCS models being built, sharing the NRE costs across the fleets would provide an extremely capable , dual role (a little more research shows that LM are looking at dual role for the missile) and easily installed missile system. NSM is a fine missile, but no VL version so you need a heavy launcher with a massive RCS increase for any platform mounting it. Unless it’s designed in at build, these things are hard to integrate from a stability point of view. A Mk41 solution would be Very, Very desirable .
            Regarding your comment “simply stupid to suggest” answer me this. What is the delta cost between integrating Tomahawk and LRASM? given that it’s exactly the same below decks and mission planning system. Again, at TRL 8, LM would happily take a market share of a new breed of Anti-ship/NFS dual role missile.

            I can’t disagree with you about T45 needing more AAW weapons. Quad packing CAMM into Sylver to replace the Aster 15 though would allow a huge increase in munitions carried at very little expense.

            Block V Tomahawk is like polishing a turd, it’s still a 30 year old airframe with very little in low observable design.

          • Ship launched LRASM is not a program of record for the U.S. navy,LM can say and do what they want with their own money it does not make it a fully developed ready to deploy system.NSM is and can simply replace deck launched Harpoon on both 45 and 23.It has all the capability the RN needs and can be carried over onto Type 31.No need to fit expensive vertical launch cells, type 26 will get the new MBDA weapon this has all ready been stated by the MOD.You seem to forget like many others that we are short of money, we can’t squander it on foreign not fully developed systems.

      • We British used to have over 120 V bomber force once and 3x more front line fighter jet squadrons and a millitary 3x our current size not so long ago and we are far richer now than we were then. We can afford it but the government doesn’t want to spend more than 1.5% of Defence. Only clever accounting and adding pensions ect into the defence budget brings it to almost 2% of We must have saved tens of billions with all the cuts so it’s time to start spending it again.

        We should spend 3% and get the equipment a global Britain deserves and needs. Our millitarys cut far to close to the bone and getting closer. Asian countrys like South Korea have a bigger navy and japans getting far bigger and has 4x more destroyers than the UK and will have more F35s now.

        • I read an interesting article a few months ago about why we need less fighters than we used to. The arguement was that cluster bombs and unguided bombs of the 80s were so inaccurate that it would take a full squadron to hit the same target a typhoon could hit with one bomb. Additionally availability rates on air frames were significantly lower than they are with more modern jets.

          Yes we could do with more, and could do with more back in the day but the logic is difficulty to argue with.

    • Prefer to stick LRASM on our Typhoons and F-35Bs and maybe on the P-8 Posidion MRA.
      Some to go in the VLS on the Frigate and Daring Destroyers would be nice too.

      • Integrating missiles onto new aircraft cost serious money ,not going to happen, only F18 and B1 are cleared to carry it.

      • The P-8 already can use the SLAM-ER, so it would be good for the RAF to buy a few before the production line closes again. It reopened for a big Saudi order.

  3. Got to wonder how long it will be before BAE drops “British” from its name. Given that successive UK govts have awarded major contracts to European comps there is not much incentive to continue as British company.

    • Therein lies the massive conundrum of Military Procurement,your Damned if you Buy from UK Companies,and your Damned if you don’t .

    • They already have, BAE (Systems Plc./Inc.) is just a collection of letters now and not an acronym.

      It was dropped so they could get inroads in the US, who don’t/can’t get anything that is not ‘made in America’.

  4. Interesting it’s a blatant Russian vessel just about to become the designated ex warship. no more unidentifiable could be anyone’s ship graphic…..we have an enemy again it seems.

    • Or maybe it was just a picture meant to look more realistic for artistic rendering rather than a bland fake looking graphic……….?

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here