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.

27
Leave a Reply

avatar
4 Comment threads
23 Thread replies
18 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
17 Comment authors
GWMNJCEwanLos Pollos (Hermanos) ChickenJohnHartley Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
newest oldest
Notify of
john martin
Guest
john martin

Have the Americans any spare B1s we could have?

Will
Guest
Will

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

john martin
Guest
john martin

I think we should have,only takes a bit of a will to do so.

Nick C
Guest
Nick C

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.

John Clark
Guest
John Clark

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…

Graham
Guest
Graham

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.

GWM
Guest
GWM

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.

Graham
Guest
Graham

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.

GWM
Guest
GWM

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.

NJC
Guest
NJC

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.

GWM
Guest
GWM

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.

NJC
Guest
NJC

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… Read more »

GWM
Guest
GWM

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,… Read more »

Helions
Guest
Helions

Some pretty heavy weight firepower is being considered for integration into the USNs new Zumwalts. Maybe they’ll find their niche after all…

https://www.military.com/dodbuzz/2018/02/26/new-nuke-cruise-missile-could-go-zumwalt-class-destroyers-stratcom.html

Cheers

Cam
Guest
Cam

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… Read more »

Steve
Guest
Steve

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.

Mark Wallace
Guest
Mark Wallace

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.

GWM
Guest
GWM

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

JohnHartley
Guest
JohnHartley

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.

Helions
Guest
Helions

Now THIS would be a excellent alternative to the boneyard for the Bone.

https://othjournal.com/2019/04/15/a-bomber-for-the-navy/

The loadouts of LRASM on 20 or 30 of these aircraft would be a (more than) serious threat to the PLAN if used in a full scale Alpha strike.

Cheers!

Helions
Guest
Helions

Ran into the moderation block but this will add to the post I’ve just made.

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/how-b-1b-bomber-could-be-transformed-navy-killer-24587

Cheers!

John Hampson
Guest
John Hampson

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.

Paul T
Guest
Paul T

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

Ewan
Guest
Ewan

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’.

Jonathan
Guest
Jonathan

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.

JohnHartley
Guest
JohnHartley

Is it Russia, Russia or a Russian ship sold to an “Axis of Evil” nation?

Los Pollos (Hermanos) Chicken
Guest
Los Pollos (Hermanos) Chicken

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