Sadly, but unlike the F-35, which has become the talk of the town, the commissioning of which has been constantly postponed for a long time, the American LRASM anti-ship missile program is on schedule and, apparently, in 2018 the missile will be adopted by the Navy USA.
And, no matter how sad it is to realize this, with the entry into service of the LRASM, the American fleet will not only finally consolidate its absolute dominance in the sea, but will also threaten the combat stability of the naval components of the strategic nuclear forces of the Russian Federation. But first things first.
So what is LRASM? This newest anti-ship weapon is based on the high-precision cruise missiles of the JASSM family already in service with the US Air Force. It makes sense to consider in more detail what they are.
In 1995, the US armed forces wanted to get a cruise missile for strikes against stationary ground targets, and the range of their flight must be sufficient to launch such missiles outside the air defense zone of potential adversaries. This requirement was explained primarily by the fact that it was originally intended to arm the B-52 strategic bombers with this missile, which by definition were incapable of operating in the enemy's strong air defense zone. Subsequently, it was planned to "train" the missile to "work" with tactical aircraft, including the F-15E, F-16, F / A-18, F-35. Initially, it was assumed that the rocket would be in demand by both the Air Force and the Navy (it was assumed that 5,350 JASSMs would be purchased, including 4,900 for the Air Force and 453 for the Navy).
The requirements listed above determined the appearance of the future rocket. It was supposed to be light enough to be carried by tactical aircraft, and the need to independently overcome powerful air defense required the use of stealth technology.
In 2003, the US Air Force entered service with the AGM-158 JASSM, the characteristics of which at that time looked quite satisfactory. A subsonic missile weighing 1020 kg was capable of delivering a 454-kg warhead to a range of 360 kilometers. Unfortunately, the parameters of the RCS of the JASSM are not known exactly, but they are clearly less than those of the old Tomahawks: some sources indicated the RCS in the amount of 0.08-0.1 sq.m.. The control system was, in general, classical for cruise missiles - inertial, with GPS and terrain correction (TERCOM). In the final section, accurate guidance was carried out by an infrared seeker. The deviation, according to some information, did not exceed 3 m. The flight height was up to 20 meters.
In general, the Americans got a fairly successful missile, capable of hitting, among other things, protected targets. One of the variants of its warhead contained the main part, whose shell consisted of a tungsten alloy and contained 109 kg of explosives and an accelerating explosion container, which gave the main warhead additional acceleration, so that it could penetrate up to 2 meters of concrete.
Despite the fact that the Navy eventually withdrew from the JASSM program and preferred the SLAM-ER missile based on the Harpoon anti-ship missile system, the AGM-158 JASSM was favorably received by the US Air Force. In 2004, the development of its modification, which received the designation JASSM-ER, began. The new missile, while maintaining speed, EPR and warhead AGM-158 JASSM, received an increased range of up to 980 km (according to some sources - up to 1300 km), and its dimensions, if increased, are insignificant. This increase was achieved through the use of a more economical engine and an increase in the capacity of the fuel tanks.
And besides, the JASSM-ER has become smarter than the missiles of the previous types. For example, it has implemented such a function as "time to goal". The rocket itself could change the speed mode and route so as to launch the attack at the appointed time. In other words, several sequentially launched missiles from the same ship, a pair of missiles from a B-1B bomber and another one from an F-15E, despite the difference in launch time and flight range, can attack one (or several targets) at the same time.
Now let's see what happened in the US Navy. In 2000, the anti-ship modifications of the Tomahawk missile were decommissioned and the US Navy lost its only long-range anti-ship missile. From this, the Americans were not too upset, since the TASM (Tomahawk Anti-Ship Missile) turned out to be like a stupid weapon system. Its undoubted advantage was the ability to fly 450 km (according to other sources - 550 km), and to do it at an ultra-low altitude of about 5 meters, which made the rocket extremely difficult to detect. But its subsonic speed led to the fact that during those half an hour of flight from the moment of launch, the target could greatly displace in space from its original position (a ship traveling at 30 knots in half an hour overcomes almost 28 kilometers), that is, it turned out to be out of the "field of view" low-flying rockets. And, importantly, American carrier-based aircraft could strike at much greater distances, which made the joint actions of TASM and Hornets with Intruders almost impossible.
For about a decade, the US Navy was content with "Harpoons", but nevertheless it should be admitted - despite all the modifications, this very successful missile for its time is pretty outdated. The range of the latest modifications did not exceed 280 km, and the rocket did not fit into the standard Mk 41 universal launcher for the American fleet, requiring a specialized deck-based launcher, which, in general, negatively affected both the cost and the radar signature of the ship.
In addition, reductions in the armed forces led to the fact that the number of aircraft carriers in the US Navy was reduced, the number of promising air groups was also reduced, and Chinese carrier ambitions loomed on the horizon. All this made the command of the US Navy think about a "long arm" for their naval groupings. And it is not surprising that JASSM-ER was chosen as a prototype for these purposes. There is already a well-developed platform, and "stealth", and relatively medium-sized dimensions, which make it possible to make the new missile universal, that is, applicable to carrier-based and tactical aircraft, strategic bombers and any carriers.
In 2009, the Americans began developing the LRASM subsonic anti-ship missile. The development proceeded quickly enough, to date, the missile tests entered the final stage and it is expected that in 2018 the missile will be put into service.
What kind of missile will the US Navy get?
Basically, it's still the same JASSM-ER, but … with a number of interesting "additions". As a matter of fact, there is a feeling that the Americans carefully studied everything they could find on Soviet anti-ship missiles, and then tried to implement the best of what they found.
1) The missile also uses an inertial guidance system, is capable of bending around terrain, and can plot difficult routes. That is, for example, it, being launched from the ocean and many hundreds of kilometers from the land, may well fly to the coast, make a circle above it, and attack the target ship moving along the coast from the coastline. It is clear that a rocket that suddenly jumped out from behind the hills, attacking against the background of the underlying surface, will be a very difficult target for the ship's anti-aircraft gunners.
2) Active-passive seeker. Actually, in the USSR, something similar was used on Granites. The idea is this - an active homing head is, in fact, a mini-radar, which determines the parameters of the target and allows the rocket computer to correct the direction of flight. But any radar can be suppressed by interference, and very powerful jammers can be installed on the ship. In this case, "Granite" … was simply aimed at the source of interference. As far as the author knows, such active-passive seeker systems have been installed on all missiles of the USSR / RF since the 80s of the last century. This was the advantage of our missiles, but now the United States has LRASMs using multi-mode active-passive radar.
3) Ability to prioritize target and attack without being distracted by others. Soviet / Russian missiles can do this too. In principle, the old "Tomahawk" also knew how to aim at the largest target, but did not have a "friend or foe" identifier, so the areas of its use had to be chosen very carefully.
4) Optoelectronic guidance system. According to some reports, LRASM has not only radar, but also an optical homing system, which allows you to visually identify targets. If this information is reliable, then we will have to admit that today LRASM has the most advanced and anti-jamming guidance system among all anti-ship missiles in the world. As far as the author knows, Russian anti-ship missiles are not equipped with anything like that.
5) Electronic warfare unit. Heavy anti-ship missiles of the USSR were equipped with special electronic warfare units designed to make it difficult for the enemy to destroy our missiles and thus facilitate their breakthrough to target ships. Whether there are similar units on modern anti-ship versions of the Onyx and Calibers is unknown to the author, but LRASM does.
6) "Flock". At one time, the USSR was able to implement the exchange of data between heavy anti-ship missiles, but the United States had nothing of the kind. However, now the principle “one sees - everyone sees” is also true for American missiles - by exchanging information, they sharply increase the group's jamming immunity and allow the distribution of targets between individual missiles. By the way, it is not known whether such data exchange is implemented by our "Onyxes" and "Calibers". I would like to believe that it has been implemented, but because of secrecy they keep quiet … The only thing that is more or less reliably known is that "Caliber", in the absence of a target in the area where it was supposed to be located, can rise 400 m in order to implement it Search.
7) Range - according to various sources from 930 to 980 km. In principle, the USSR had Vulcan missiles, which, according to some sources, flew 1000 km (most sources still give 700 km), but today the Vulcan is outdated. Unfortunately, it is completely unknown how far the anti-ship versions of "Caliber" and "Onyx" fly - there is reason to assume that their range may not be 350-375 km, but 500-800 km, but this is just guesswork. In general, it can be assumed that the LRASM is superior in range to all anti-ship missiles at the disposal of the Russian Navy.
8) Rocket flight altitude. Supersonic Soviet anti-ship missiles and the Russian "Onyx" have a somewhat decent range only with a combined flight path (when the flight takes place at high altitude and only before the attack the missiles go to low altitudes). "Caliber" flies 20 m, descending before the attack, and the flight altitude of 20 m was announced for LRASM.
9) Warhead weight. From this point of view, LRASM occupies an intermediate position between the heavy anti-ship missiles of the USSR, which had (according to various sources) warheads weighing from 500 to 750 kg and modern missiles "Caliber" and "Onyx" with a 200-300 kg warhead.
10) Versatility. Here LRASM has an obvious advantage over the anti-ship missiles of the Soviet Union, since their huge mass and dimensions required the creation of specialized carriers - both surface and submarine, and these missiles could not be placed on airplanes at all. At the same time, LRASM can be used by any ship that has the Mk 41 UVP standard for the United States, as well as tactical and strategic aircraft and, of course, deck aircraft. The only drawback of the LRASM is that it was not "trained" to operate from a submarine, but the Lockheed Martin development firm threatens to correct this shortcoming if there was an order from the US Navy. Accordingly, we can talk about an approximate parity of universality with "Caliber" - but not "Onyx". The thing is that domestic missiles of these types are significantly heavier than LRASM, and although it seems that work is underway to "tie" them to aircraft, it will be more difficult to do so. In addition, other things being equal, a heavier missile will either reduce the aircraft's ammunition load or reduce its flight range. LRASM hardly weighs more than 1100-1200 kg (it is likely that its weight remained at the level of JASSM-ER, i.e. 1020-1050 kg), while the anti-ship versions of the Caliber - 1800 - 2300 kg, and Onyx "and at all 3000 kg. On the other hand, Russian missiles have no problem “registered” on domestic submarines, including nuclear ones, but LRASM has a hitch with this.
11) Stealth. The only domestic rocket that can have somewhat similar EPR indicators with the American LRASM is "Caliber", but … not the fact that it does.
12) Speed - everything is simple here. The American missile is subsonic, while the Soviet heavy anti-ship missiles and the Russian Onyx are supersonic, and only the Caliber is a subsonic Russian anti-ship missile.
It is known that the Americans, when developing a new anti-ship missile system, assumed the development of not only a subsonic missile (LRASM-A), but also a supersonic missile (LRASM-B), but later abandoned the supersonic version, focusing on the subsonic one. What is the reason for this decision?
First, recently the Americans have been trying to minimize R&D costs (as strange as it may sound), and they would have had to develop a supersonic anti-ship missile from scratch: they simply do not have such experience. Not that the Americans do not know how to make supersonic missiles, they can, of course. But in general, the volume and cost of work on such a missile significantly exceeded those for the subsonic anti-ship missile project. At the same time, there was still a considerable risk to do "as in Russia, only worse", because we have been dealing with supersonic missiles for decades and it is very difficult to catch up with the Russian Federation in this matter.
Second - in fact, oddly enough it may sound for some, but a supersonic anti-ship missile today does not have any fundamental advantages over a subsonic one. And a lot here depends on the concept of using anti-ship missiles.
A supersonic anti-ship missile can cover a distance much faster than a subsonic one, and this gives it a lot of advantages. The same "Vulcan", with its cruising speed of Mach 2.5, overcomes 500 km in a little more than 10 minutes - during this time even a high-speed ship, following at 30 knots, will not have time to cover even 10 kilometers. Thus, a supersonic missile that has received a "fresh" target designation, in general, does not need to look for a target ship upon arrival.
In addition, it is very difficult to intercept a supersonic missile by means of the ship's air defense - Soviet heavy anti-ship missiles, having detected a target, went to low heights, hiding behind the radio horizon, and then emerging from behind it at a speed of 1.5 M (that is, almost twice as fast as the same "Harpoon"). As a result, the American ship had literally 3-4 minutes left to shoot down the Soviet "monster", while it had not yet gone to a low altitude, and during this time it was necessary to do everything - to find the target, issue the control center, take it to be accompanied by the illumination radar (In the last century, the US Navy did not have a missile defense system with an active seeker) to release a missile defense system so that it had enough time to reach the Soviet anti-ship missile system. Taking into account the real (and not tabular) reaction time, which was demonstrated by far from the worst British air defense systems in the Falkland Islands (Sea Dart, Su Wolfe), it is not that hopeless, but very unpromising. The same "Se Wolfe" during exercises managed to shoot down 114-mm artillery shells in flight, but in battle sometimes did not have time to fire a subsonic attack aircraft flying over the ship. And if you also remember the presence of electronic warfare units on Soviet missiles … Well, after the multi-ton anti-ship missile system emerged from the horizon and barely a minute remained before it hit the side of the ship, by and large, only electronic warfare could be protected from it.
But every advantage comes at a price. The problem is that low-altitude flight is much more energy-intensive than high-altitude flight, therefore, domestic anti-ship missiles, having a combined flight range of 550-700 km, could barely overcome 145-200 km at low altitude. Accordingly, the missiles had to cover most of the path at an altitude of over 10 km (data for different types of missiles differ, reaching in some sources up to 18-19 km). In addition, the units of a supersonic rocket require a lot of air, so there is a need for large air intakes, which greatly increase the RCS of the rocket. Large RCS and flight altitude do not allow the supersonic missile to be made invisible. During a flight at high altitude, such a missile is quite vulnerable to the effects of enemy aircraft and can be shot down by air-to-air missiles.
In other words, the supersonic anti-ship missile relies on a short reaction time. Yes, it can be seen well from afar, but it leaves the enemy little time to counter.
In contrast, a subsonic missile is capable of creeping at low altitude, and many stealth elements can be implemented on it. Due to the low flight altitude, such a missile cannot be seen by the ship's radar until the missile comes out from behind the radio horizon (25-30 km) and only then it will be possible to shoot at it and use electronic warfare equipment. In this case, about 2.5 minutes remain until the missile hits, traveling at a speed of 800 km / h, that is, the reaction time of the ship's missile defense is also extremely limited. But such a missile will cover the same 500 km for almost 38 minutes, providing the enemy with aerial reconnaissance means much more opportunities to detect these missiles, after which they can be destroyed, including with the use of fighters. In addition, during the approach of the subsonic anti-ship missile system, target ships can greatly displace in space, and then you will need to look for them. This is not a problem if the attacking side can control the movement of the enemy order and, accordingly, adjust the flight of the missiles, but if there is no such possibility, then you will have to rely solely on the “ingenuity” of the missiles themselves, and it’s better not to do this.
Why did the USSR develop supersonic missiles in the first place? Because our Navy was preparing to operate under the information dominance of the American Navy, "under the hood" of their reconnaissance aircraft. Accordingly, it would be difficult to count on the fact that the subsonic anti-ship missiles would remain undetected in the marching sector and not be attacked by US carrier-based aircraft, and in addition, the ships warned in advance could sharply change course and speed in order to evade contact. It was more effective to attack with supersonic missiles, relying on the short reaction time that such missiles leave to enemy weapons. In addition, the rapid exit of missiles to the target did not give the American ship's warrant a chance to evade by maneuver.
But the Americans have completely different reasons. A typical operation to destroy an enemy shipborne strike group (KUG) will look like this - with the help of a satellite or a long-range AWACS patrol, an enemy AWACS is detected, an air patrol is sent to it - an AWACS aircraft under the cover of an electronic warfare aircraft and fighters controls the movement of the AWG from a safe distance (300 km and more) Then cruise missiles are launched. Well, yes, they will arrive at a target located at a distance of, say, 800-900 km from the American squadron in almost an hour, but the Americans have this hour - it is guaranteed by the air supremacy of the US carrier-based aircraft. During the flight, the route of the anti-ship missile system is adjusted taking into account the movement of the KUG and the selected attack pattern. The anti-ship missiles, hiding from the ship's radars behind the radio horizon, occupy the lines for attack, and then, at the appointed time, a massive anti-ship missile raid begins from different directions.
That is, for the Americans, who are able to provide both control over the movements of target ships and protect their missiles from detection and attack in the air, the speed of anti-ship missiles is no longer a critical factor and, accordingly, they are quite capable of effectively using subsonic anti-ship missiles.
But LRASM can be used quite effectively outside the dominance of US aviation. The fact is that due to their small EPR, even such long-range radar detection monsters as the A-50U will be able to detect a missile of this type at a distance of 80-100 km, which is not so much. It is also necessary to bear in mind that the emitting AWACS aircraft unmasks itself, and the missile route can be rebuilt in such a way as to bypass the detection zone of the Russian AWACS patrol.
In a possible confrontation between the American and Chinese fleets, the appearance of LRASM puts "check and checkmate" on the Chinese. Not only do their aircraft carriers do not have reconnaissance aircraft somewhat comparable to the American carrier-based aircraft, not only do American ejection atomic floating airfields are capable of sending into battle a much larger number of aircraft than Chinese springboards, but now also, due to the use of a "long hands "in the form of LRASM, the Americans can reduce the number of attack aircraft, respectively increasing the number of aircraft to gain air supremacy, thereby creating an overwhelming numerical superiority.
Why are the new American anti-ship missiles dangerous for our strategic nuclear forces?
The fact is that in a threatening period our fleets will need to ensure the deployment of strategic missile submarine cruisers, and for this it is necessary to cover the water areas in which this deployment will be carried out. Taking into account the multiple superiority in the number of multipurpose nuclear submarines (against one of our nuclear submarines, the Americans have at least three of their own), this task can be solved only by extreme exertion of all submarine, surface and air forces at our disposal. An important role here could be played by corvettes and frigates deployed in a "fishing net" in the protected water area, including due to their ability to receive and maintain anti-submarine helicopters.
However, with the adoption of the LRASM, the Americans get the opportunity to destroy such a "trapping net", deployed, for example, in the Barents Sea, within an hour, in full force and only one. To do this, they will need only 2-3 destroyers "Arleigh Burke", a pair of AWACS aircraft to reveal the surface situation and air patrol fighters for air cover. All this can be provided both from the coast of Norway and the deck of an aircraft carrier off these coast. Reveal the location of Russian ships, launch missiles, "ordering" them to attack targets at exactly 00.00 and … that's it.
No matter how good the air defenses of an Admiral Gorshkov-class frigate are, they will not be able to reflect the simultaneous strike of ten LRASMs (just like the Arlie Burke will not be able to reflect the strike of ten Caliber). The price of the issue? According to some reports, the cost of one LRASM anti-ship missile is $ 3 million. The cost of one Admiral Gorshkov-class frigate was estimated at more than $ 400 million (according to other sources - $ 550 million). justified.
In general, the following can be stated. The LRASM anti-ship missile is a very formidable weapon of naval combat, at least equal, but rather still superior to that of the Russian Navy, including even such "advanced" weapons as "Onyx" and "Caliber". In 2018, when the Americans will adopt the LRASM, for the first time in the history of the confrontation, our fleet will lose its superiority in long-range anti-ship missiles, which it possessed for many decades.
In essence, we can say that the Soviet Navy developed its "rocket" evolution, choosing long-range anti-ship missiles as its main weapon. In contrast to this, the US Navy chose the "aircraft carrier" route, entrusting the task of destroying enemy surface forces on carrier-based aircraft. Each of these paths had advantages and disadvantages.
We were the first to realize the fallacy of such a division when we started building aircraft carriers in addition to powerful submarine and surface missile carriers, as well as naval missile-carrying aviation, but the collapse of the USSR destroyed these undertakings. But in practice, the Americans will be the first to unite the advantages of the "missile" and "aircraft carrier" approaches. With the introduction of the LRASM into service, they receive a "long missile arm" capable of operating at about the same distance as their carrier-based aircraft, and this will make their fleet much stronger.
The appearance of the hypersonic "Zircon" may return us to primacy in anti-ship missile weapons, but it may not return - everything will depend on the real characteristics of the newest missile. But you need to understand that even if Zircon surpasses LRASM in all respects, from now on our fleet will face a much more formidable enemy than before. Regardless of whether we succeed in "Zircon" or not, the US Navy will receive a powerful "long arm" and it will become much more difficult to deal with them.
Thank you for the attention!
