All this debate about LRASM seems somewhat outdated, especially considering that its cousins—like the stealthy Storm Shadow and other similar missiles—have already been intercepted by air defenses in places like Russia and Pakistan.
I’m not sure what people think stealth actually is—some kind of magical invisibility cloak? Let’s be clear: stealth is just about shaping and materials that deflect radar waves away from the radar source. But this shaping can't eliminate all radar reflections—some waves will always scatter. What stealth really does is reduce the radar detection range, shrinking the radius within which an object can be detected. However, any stealth-shaped object will eventually be detected as it gets closer.
This is why I believe stealth is largely pointless on a missile. A missile must approach its target, meaning it will inevitably get closer and eventually be detected. This is fundamentally different from a stealth aircraft, which can approach, launch long-range missiles, and then retreat.
If a missile continues to close in—especially at subsonic speeds—it will be detected, and defensive missiles will be launched in response. Due to its slower speed, it becomes an easy target. Sure, instead of being detected at 100 miles out, a stealth missile might only be detected at 30 miles—but 30 miles is still enough distance to intercept a subsonic missile.
Stealth becomes even more questionable on a sea-skimming missile. The entire point of sea-skimming is to stay below radar horizons and avoid early detection due to the Earth's curvature. Such missiles are only detectable by shipborne radar at around 20–30 miles anyway. So how exactly does stealth help, if they’re going to be seen at that range regardless?
Stealth seems like a band-aid solution to the U.S.’s real limitation: the lack of large aircraft capable of carrying big supersonic or hypersonic missiles. The U.S. has relatively few bombers, and they’re tied up with multiple missions. Its fighters are smaller and can't carry large weapons. So what’s the workaround? If you can only carry small missiles, you try to make them more survivable—by adding stealth. That’s what LRASM really is.
China, for example, also has stealth missiles like the AKF-98. But that’s not its primary strike option. China leans on large, fast missiles like the YJ-12 and YJ-18—and even hypersonic ones like the YJ-21. That’s because China has the bomber force—like the H-6—and large strike aircraft like the JH-7 and J-16 to carry them.
In the end, LRASM will be judged by its combat performance—and I believe that when it’s finally used, it will be exposed as a failure.
I’m not sure what people think stealth actually is—some kind of magical invisibility cloak? Let’s be clear: stealth is just about shaping and materials that deflect radar waves away from the radar source. But this shaping can't eliminate all radar reflections—some waves will always scatter. What stealth really does is reduce the radar detection range, shrinking the radius within which an object can be detected. However, any stealth-shaped object will eventually be detected as it gets closer.
This is why I believe stealth is largely pointless on a missile. A missile must approach its target, meaning it will inevitably get closer and eventually be detected. This is fundamentally different from a stealth aircraft, which can approach, launch long-range missiles, and then retreat.
If a missile continues to close in—especially at subsonic speeds—it will be detected, and defensive missiles will be launched in response. Due to its slower speed, it becomes an easy target. Sure, instead of being detected at 100 miles out, a stealth missile might only be detected at 30 miles—but 30 miles is still enough distance to intercept a subsonic missile.
Stealth becomes even more questionable on a sea-skimming missile. The entire point of sea-skimming is to stay below radar horizons and avoid early detection due to the Earth's curvature. Such missiles are only detectable by shipborne radar at around 20–30 miles anyway. So how exactly does stealth help, if they’re going to be seen at that range regardless?
Stealth seems like a band-aid solution to the U.S.’s real limitation: the lack of large aircraft capable of carrying big supersonic or hypersonic missiles. The U.S. has relatively few bombers, and they’re tied up with multiple missions. Its fighters are smaller and can't carry large weapons. So what’s the workaround? If you can only carry small missiles, you try to make them more survivable—by adding stealth. That’s what LRASM really is.
China, for example, also has stealth missiles like the AKF-98. But that’s not its primary strike option. China leans on large, fast missiles like the YJ-12 and YJ-18—and even hypersonic ones like the YJ-21. That’s because China has the bomber force—like the H-6—and large strike aircraft like the JH-7 and J-16 to carry them.
In the end, LRASM will be judged by its combat performance—and I believe that when it’s finally used, it will be exposed as a failure.
