Future PLAN naval and carrier operations

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

OK so this:

Brumby said:

... the LRASM ... their collective ESM..

Click to expand...

should imply the LRASM has any ESM at all according to you, which would answer my Yesterday at 9:40 PM question

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)

Click to expand...

Brumby said:

Is the LRASM virtually undetectable? It is the context that is important. The F-22 is generally considered to be an order of magnitude more stealthy than the F-35. According to the AWST pictorial, the S-400 has a engagement range of 34 kms for the f-35 as opposed 21 kms for the F-22. This is a function of their RCS difference

. View attachment 53867

The LRASM's RCS is classified and so I don't know how stealthy it really is. Given that the F-22 is at least one order of magnitude lower than the F-35, it is not inconceivable that the LRASM has two order of magnitude or even three lower than the F-35. Translated this means the following engagement range :
2 X = 11 kms
3 X = 7 kms

At this range, the engagement window is extremely small. The prospect of collateral damage on the target is very high even if the LRASM is destroyed prior to impact.

Click to expand...

No, that is completely the wrong logic.

We know that larger aircraft such as the B-2 have the size to incorporate the large stealth design features that are required to defeat UHF radar wavelengths.
But that smaller aircraft such as the F-35 and F-22 have to use small control fins, and these features do generate UHF radar returns.

Therefore a smaller LRASM with even smaller control fins and wings should generate a larger UHF radar return than the F-35, even though the missile body is cleaner.

And remember that any notional 2040 Chinese fleet operating in the Western Pacific should have multiple airborne UHF radars flying overhead at different angles and ranges.

---

And perhaps you missed a previous point. If LRASMs are as effective as you believe, there is no technological or financial barrier to China fielding its own horde of LRASMs by 2040.

That would have the effect of making the Western Pacific a no-go area for any surface warship, which suits China just fine because China achieves its objectives using land-based aircraft and missiles, plus ships operating within fighter cover of the Chinese mainland.

In comparison, the US Navy would have to stay at ranges in excess of 2000km+ from the Chinese mainland.

So the US Navy should be praying that LRASMs are ineffective, because otherwise China will field its own LRASMs and the US Navy would be neutered in the Western Pacific.

In addition, it would mean LRASMs launched from the Chinese mainland would be able to enforce a seaborne blockade over every port in the Western Pacific. What would happen if every ship approaching Japan, Korea, Okinawa, Taiwan was sunk? But these countries would have no choice but to run ships anyway. And how would US bases be resupplied?

Jura said:

OK so this:should imply the LRASM has any ESM at all according to you, which would answer my Yesterday at 9:40 PM question

Click to expand...

Please refer to the article.

LRASM is a cousin of Lockheed's stealthy

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

and is aiming to replace and expand the mission of both the AGM-84 aircraft-launched and RGM-84 ship-launched Harpoon. The video below depicts generally how LRASM works and some of the capabilities it brings to the table. In it you will see its most prominent feature is that it will "intelligently" sense and avoid hostile threats via an on-board passive radio frequency and threat warning receiver. Additionally, LRASM is equipped with an on-board data-link, advanced artificial intelligence software, low probability of intercept radar, imaging infrared sensor and an

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

. All of this is tied to the sneaky missile's autopilot and cutting-edge computing core.

Basically, this stealthy missile will have enough AI on-board to survive via the automatic dissemination of high-quality electronic service measure (ESM)/radar warning receiver data. In other words, it sniffs out the enemy's electronic emissions (especially radar emissions) classifies them, geolocates them, and then figures out its own a route of best survival, or it decides to attack one of these threats directly.

Click to expand...

AndrewS said:

No, that is completely the wrong logic.

We know that larger aircraft such as the B-2 have the size to incorporate the large stealth design features that are required to defeat UHF radar wavelengths.
But that smaller aircraft such as the F-35 and F-22 have to use small control fins, and these features do generate UHF radar returns.

Therefore a smaller LRASM with even smaller control fins and wings should generate a larger UHF radar return than the F-35.

Click to expand...

There are two problems that you are ignoring. UHF radar have poor resolution for engagement. Secondly, sea waves generate a lot of clutter.

AndrewS said:

And remember that any notional 2040 Chinese fleet operating in the Western Pacific should have multiple airborne UHF radars flying overhead at different angles and ranges.

Click to expand...

Which is back to my initial point. The arguments are grounded on assumptions, conjectures and inferences. ....

AndrewS said:

And perhaps you missed a previous point. If LRASMs are as effective as you believe, there is no technological or financial barrier to China fielding its own horde of LRASMs by 2040.

That would have the effect of making the Western Pacific a no-go area for any surface warship, which suits China just fine because China achieves its objectives using land-based aircraft and missiles, plus ships operating within fighter cover of the Chinese mainland.

In comparison, the US Navy would have to stay at ranges in excess of 2000km+ from the Chinese mainland.

So the US Navy should be praying that LRASMs are ineffective, because otherwise China will field its own LRASMs and the US Navy effectively neutered in the Western Pacific.

In addition, it would mean LRASMs launched from the Chinese mainland would be able to enforce a seaborne blockade over every port in the Western Pacific. How would Japan, Korea, Okinawa, Taiwan manage, if every ship approaching port was sunk? How would US bases be resupplied?

Click to expand...

I haven't missed anything. The initial argument was about the PLAN dominating the second island chain and beyond. Secondly, remind me when China actually develops such capability as the LRASM and then we can continue the conversation on how the US will likely address such a threat. Until then, the LRASM has gone IOC with the B-1 in 2018 and the follow up is with the F-18 this year.

Mike Griffin, he previously served as Administrator of NASA and now the recently appointed U.S. undersecretary of defense for research and engineering quoted " Existing air and missile defense systems are “very effective “are very effective against a threat moving slowly enough to give us time to acquire track, target, and deploy a shooter,” he said, but hypersonics just move too fast for current defenses to intercept."

Mr B is the one making claims therefore the burden of the proof is on him instead he quote "Do you have any evidence that the product is just sales talk or the technology itself is somehow unattainable? Is it the miniaturization of the ESM? Is it the use of AI.instruction sets? Is it the networking of data? What is it?" to Jura asking absence of evidence is not evidence of absence so same logic applies to Loch Ness and Big Foot. His whole claims not only is assumptions, conjectures and inferences but is in such complex magnitude not only there are so many weak link kill chain and the operation it is in it self too complex too prone to failure, is like having a wrestling royal rumble and orchestrating a Mozart symphony at the same time and hope your rival dont break your piano, and then the whole thing is too many cherry picking assumptions, conjectures and inferences

Brumby said:

Firstly do you have any evidence that the LRASM is highly dependent on RAM for its RCS reduction because 90 % of reduction is by way of shaping?

Secondly, missiles by nature has a lower RCS than fighter plane as a starting point. For example, a conical non VLO ballistic missile has a 0.01m2 RCS Can you nominate any fighter plane that is not dependent on shaping but simply RAM to have such level of RCS? You are simply making up an argument without reference to the technology or the context.
.

Click to expand...

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.

Brumby said:

There are two problems that you are ignoring. UHF radar have poor resolution for engagement. Secondly, sea waves generate a lot of clutter.

Click to expand...

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.

Which is back to my initial point. The arguments are grounded on assumptions, conjectures and inferences. ....



I haven't missed anything. The initial argument was about the PLAN dominating the second island chain and beyond. Secondly, remind me when China actually develops such capability as the LRASM and then we can continue the conversation on how the US will likely address such a threat. Until then, the LRASM has gone IOC with the B-1 in 2018 and the follow up is with the F-18 this year.

Click to expand...

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.

Andy what's your link to this:

AndrewS said:

... 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)
...

Click to expand...

(had it been true, I would've expected such an info even at )

Brumby said:

Please refer to the article.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

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

so I asked Yesterday at 9:40 PM

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)

Click to expand...

please note that's a Yes or No question