Am I the only one who thinks the LRASM is just an absolutely BONKERS weapon?

Am I the only one who thinks the LRASM is just an absolutely BONKERS weapon? It's like everyone is so absorbed by the moronation of the Ukraine-Russian war and their missing airforce that no one is talking about the US being able to dump ChatGPT stealth cruise missiles into the air and delete entire navies.
>200 nautical mile range
>1k penetrator warhead
>low observable
>Lockheed AI training allows it to literally identify enemy vessels and prioritize/distribute targets amongst eachother
>ELINT/SIGINT datalink frickery where they are obviously relaying emissions back through data link to the rest of the battlespace, in essence turning each of the missiles into a goddamned one way radar picket
>F/A-18's carry them
>F-25's carry them
>VLS cells launch them
>B-1B's can carry 36 of the frickers
>Poseidon carry them because frick you
>Any plane that can drop a pallet out its ass can rapid dragon them too
This shit is NUTS. What do you even fricking do if you're the PLAN? These zippy little shits are going to arrive at the opening hours of WWIII and absolutely frick your shit up.

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    No yeah LRASM is pretty based. Everyone is busy drooling over muh hypersonics. They are too distracted to notice the majesty of the stealth AI cruise missile.

  2. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    the f25 will absolutely NOT carry them

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      She cute

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      https://i.imgur.com/HlvKFQr.jpg

      She cute

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      One of the coolest munitions we have ngl

      https://i.imgur.com/HlvKFQr.jpg

      She cute

      >not aware of the hato sekret project

  3. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    It’s no LRASM, but I like quick sink a lot too.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Quick sink seems like a far more economic option for curb stomping little shitty navies. I'm sure LRASM are reserved for the real shit which at this point is probably only China and maybeeee Iran if they want to go Praying Mantis part II.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Quick sink is in a weird place, in what future conflict do we really expect to need to 'economically' sink large surface ships that you can safely get to within 10nm of?

        It honestly feels more like a technology demonstrator than a practical weapons program.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Cargo ships, support ships (you know, refueling and rearming ones), intelligence ships, all sorts of things anon. Or killing, cheaply, warships after you've already mission killed them. An Arleigh Burke could be murdered by an F-35 dropping a Quick Sink if its SPY-1/SPY-6 was down and it didn't have the SM-2 fire control radars offline. It'd likely blow the ship in half.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Still a non-credible scenario in a future conflict. Unescorted bug cargo ships aren't going to be fricking off by themselves outside of SAM coverage, and little brownoid navies aren't big enough to need more than 10 LRASMs if we needed to eliminate their combat capability.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              Anon, you could pack quite a few of these into a B-21. They're cheap too.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >It'd likely blow the ship in half.
            in an instant too^

            Still a non-credible scenario in a future conflict. Unescorted bug cargo ships aren't going to be fricking off by themselves outside of SAM coverage, and little brownoid navies aren't big enough to need more than 10 LRASMs if we needed to eliminate their combat capability.

            >little brownoid navies
            are going to be 100% submersible drone swarms that absolutely SHIT-WRECK surface ships like westoid navies

            whatever you see happening in the black-sea
            do fricking 10 exponents of it,
            thats whay "brownoid" navies are going to do to dipshit surface ships sailing around like its 1945 or something

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              see [...]
              Most missiles have a hard time actually sinking ships because they do damage above the waterline. But they will effectively mission kill them. That allows you to use the more lethal but much cheaper quicksink to finish them off. A DDG with a destroyed radar is a sitting duck to a JDAM.

              And yet, quicksink still just remains an AFRL-sponsored research project instead of a real weapons acquisition program.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Its just a modified JDAM anon. Budgets have procurement priorities. There's more than one way to sink a ship once its been disabled. They clearly have other things with a higher priority.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              >that absolutely SHIT-WRECK surface ships like westoid navies
              The brownoid subhuman is 20 years late to the party and thinks that a trick weapon that works on a nation that stopped developing in the 80s would work on actual modern navies that have worked on the concept.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          see

          LRASM and AARGM cripple the surface fleet. Once they've been mission killed and no longer can resist you can finish them off with quicksink.

          Most missiles have a hard time actually sinking ships because they do damage above the waterline. But they will effectively mission kill them. That allows you to use the more lethal but much cheaper quicksink to finish them off. A DDG with a destroyed radar is a sitting duck to a JDAM.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Quick sink is in a weird place, in what future conflict do we really expect to need to 'economically' sink large surface ships that you can safely get to within 10nm of?

        It honestly feels more like a technology demonstrator than a practical weapons program.

        Still a non-credible scenario in a future conflict. Unescorted bug cargo ships aren't going to be fricking off by themselves outside of SAM coverage, and little brownoid navies aren't big enough to need more than 10 LRASMs if we needed to eliminate their combat capability.

        This is a anti-shipping weapon, just like mines in WW2. China has no where near the coverage to escort even a fraction of it's merchant marine, and in a real no-shit Taiwan situation, they will absolutely not have the hulls or forward basing to provide even minimal coverage for their merchant ships. Given how badly they need overseas inputs into their economy, Quicksink will probably do more to end the war than anything besides mines. Chinese population will be pissed when the entire PLAN gets turned into artificial reefs by LRSAM etc but they will actually revolt when there isn't any food on the shelves or gasoline available because it's all on the sea floor.

        Still a non-credible scenario in a future conflict. Unescorted bug cargo ships aren't going to be fricking off by themselves outside of SAM coverage, and little brownoid navies aren't big enough to need more than 10 LRASMs if we needed to eliminate their combat capability.

        I think you're not really familiar with the actual routes that the Chinese merchant marine has to transit, and what blue water resources are available to protect them. Shit, the US has like 4x as many blue water assets and 1/10th the merchant ships and *we* couldn't do it. China has zero chance of being able to prevent guerre de course in that manner.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          I doubt Quick Sink will do much just because a lot of Chinese cargo ships will be unescorted or lightly escorted to the point that allied aircraft will be able to dumb bomb them from 13,000 ft or so.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Almost all the TACAIR is going to be tied up in theater and not available for a distant maritime blockade. I think it's mainly going to be on B-52s out of Diego Garcia just deleting 20+ container ships per sortie. You could use dumb bombs off an F-16 or something but that's not really practical given the ranges involved and the very marginal cost savings of a Mk82 vs a quicksink.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            The US doesn't even use dumb bombs anymore. It's all JDAMs and laser guidance kits. Honestly, you could probably just strafe the waterline with 20mm and sink most cargo ships. They're just not designed to take damage.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              I have a feeling they will in a major war. In BMS you can drop so many JDAMs you run out of the kits and when you're forced to use dumb bombs at medium to high altitudes you learn they're actually not that bad if you use them correctly and tailor your mission to them. Dumb bombing tank battalions is a dumb idea but for large targets (like a ship) you can drop 2 or 3 at a time and get a guaranteed hit.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >when you're forced to use dumb bombs at medium to high altitudes you learn they're actually not that bad
                Wrong. They are that bad and even worse at medium to high altitude. They can only reliably hit small-ish targets like a ship using a typical tactical aircraft payload from a low altitude where even an AK can shoot at them. That's the whole reason PGMs are such a game changer - they allow a single tactical aircraft do what would otherwise require a whole squadron on its own, all from the safety of substantial altitude - something that was previously only possible using tactical nuclear weapons. It's also more efficient because you get the effect of 20 bombs from one guidance kit while also using and risking only one aircraft, pilot and so on.

                There's only one type of aircraft that can reliably attack point targets using dumb bombs from high altitude and that is the strategic bomber like the B-52 which carries enough bombs to just saturate an area with them well enough that they are reliably destroyed. Even then, against hardened targets like underground bunkers, reinforced concrete hangars and tunnels there is no alternative to PGMs at all for a favourable tradeoff.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                I'm not going to bother with you, anon.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Of course you won't after being proven wrong so readily.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      LRASM and AARGM cripple the surface fleet. Once they've been mission killed and no longer can resist you can finish them off with quicksink.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Noooooooooooooo muh scenario states that they have to give up entirely after one strike! USN BTFO China numbah wun!

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Everyone needs a good high/low combination.

  4. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    JASSM-XR is also fricking insane if you've ever tried it in Command: Modern Operations. You can take a B-52, load it up with them, fly halfway across the Pacific, release them somewhere SE of Japan, and hit targets on the Chinese coast. Chinese fighters need to refuel around the coast of Japan (lol, lmao even) to have a chance at hitting you, unless they're J-20s.

  5. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Buy an ad sandbox

  6. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    It’s not that impressive. It would have been scary in the 70s and maybe 80s but now it’s not good enough. Let’s say it gets right up close to the target before being detected, say, 20 nautical miles and that it’s going at 600 kts. If it goes straight to the target it’s take 2 minutes to hit. With modern battle management systems that is more then enough time to intercept it, and in fact with more than one attempt at it.

    The YJ-12 export variant is Mach 3 terminal. Let’s say that it’s seen much further out at 40 nm. it would take 72 seconds to reach the target. Now that’s STILL more than enough time for it to be intercepted by a modern combat system but it’s still more likely to penetrate than the LRASM. You would still need an overwhelming NUMBER of shots to overcome defenses, it’s not like it’s an F-22 seal-clubbing helpless victims.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Fricking moron.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >”fricking moron!”
        >Looks around nervously waiting for someone with a substantial counter-argument to back him up

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          No, you're moronic. You do not deserve a "counter-argument" as you're not attempting to argue, you're just saying stupid shit to look smart. Giving you information in the form of a counter-argument will just let you look less moronic, which we don't want.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Somewhat wordy way to concede but that’s fine I accept.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              Post RCS of LRASM.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                About tree fiddy.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >projecting one of your own behaviours onto others.
          lmao

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      > It would have been scary in the 70s and maybe 80s
      Non-stealth subsonic sea skimming missiles were state of the art in the 80's anon. Stuff like Harpoon and exocet were very effective and lethal at the time.

      >detected, say, 20 nautical miles
      You wont see them that far, they are sea skimming. 20 miles is the radar horizon, but we are talking about a low observable missile against the sea. Reaction time will be similar to much faster non low observable missile.

      >The YJ-12 export variant is Mach 3 terminal. Let’s say that it’s seen much further out at 40 nm
      Missiles like that are detected much earlier because they rely on a higher altitude flight path. You can't get a practical range flying at mach 3 on the deck. So they fly higher and their strategy is all about speed. But as has been proven time and time again, Aegis with SM can easily handle such threats. On the other hand we have ample recent evidence of western LO cruise missiles penetrating air defenses.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Shut the frick up, do not give him any information. The belife that a 0.01 sqm RCS cruise missile with insane sensors was "maybe scary in the 70s" outs him to anyone who has a clue, you do not want to correct him on that as you've now done.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Yes, sub-sonic sea-skimming missiles were top-tier in the 80s. Making them low-observable (NOT stealth) would have been them scary in the 80s. It’s not the 80s. It’s an era of CPUs running integrated automatic battle management systems and sensor fusion. It’s an era of AESA, advanced signal processing and high-resolution IR with image recognition.

        Also it’s reported that these newer supersonic anti-shipping missiles like Brahmos and Onix are very-close sea-skimming (3-4 meters) in the terminal phase. The Onix in particular is said to be supersonic at ALL phases. These things will be approaching the target at supersonic speeds just above sea level. Modern radar does in fact have over-horizon capability so I was giving it the benefit of the doubt by letting the LRSAM get just 20nm away before detection by radar or optics after it raises above the horizon and is contrasted against the sky. My point is that’s not good enough because modern systems will defeat that level of performance.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >Supersonic
          It's hypersonic, read the right propaganda at least

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            the brahmos goes to mach 2.5 no one says its hyper sonic

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >low-observable (NOT stealth)
          You have no idea what you are talking about.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >if i just use buzzwords they'll believe me
          No.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          > sensor fusion
          Problem:
          Russia cannot into fusion
          China cannot into sensors

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      lol, lmao even, the amount of cope needed to believe this is amazing

      https://i.imgur.com/rVBmJcQ.jpg

      >”fricking moron!”
      >Looks around nervously waiting for someone with a substantial counter-argument to back him up

      why do you expect people to give an actual response to your completely inane post?

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Yes yes, all fake noise.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          It's not 1997 anymore.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >September 1997

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Yes, sub-sonic sea-skimming missiles were top-tier in the 80s. Making them low-observable (NOT stealth) would have been them scary in the 80s. It’s not the 80s. It’s an era of CPUs running integrated automatic battle management systems and sensor fusion. It’s an era of AESA, advanced signal processing and high-resolution IR with image recognition.

          Also it’s reported that these newer supersonic anti-shipping missiles like Brahmos and Onix are very-close sea-skimming (3-4 meters) in the terminal phase. The Onix in particular is said to be supersonic at ALL phases. These things will be approaching the target at supersonic speeds just above sea level. Modern radar does in fact have over-horizon capability so I was giving it the benefit of the doubt by letting the LRSAM get just 20nm away before detection by radar or optics after it raises above the horizon and is contrasted against the sky. My point is that’s not good enough because modern systems will defeat that level of performance.

          >Also it’s reported that these newer supersonic anti-shipping missiles like Brahmos and Onix are very-close sea-skimming (3-4 meters) in the terminal phase. The Onix in particular is said to be supersonic at ALL phases. These things will be approaching the target at supersonic speeds just above sea level.

          The US uses the GQM-163 Coyote supersonic super sea skimming missile to mimic vatnig and chinsect missiles, and SM-2s have zero problem intercepting them (see WebM). They're mach 2.5+ capable, skimming just a couple of meters above the water, and are quite maneuverable. Stealth and on-board intelligence are the present, and the future - which is why the US chose to pursue them.

          You seem to have the same problem that many others in your camp make: You project the US' capabilities onto Russia and China, and then make grand claims based on it. Neither Russia nor China possess the hardware or software to do what you claim. Hell, Russia can't even stop shitty Harpoon copies from sinking their flagship ship of the Russian Navy. Quite pathetic.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >nor China
            yet...
            it doesn't seem like anyone is that intent on stopping Chinese tech theft in the USA

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            I adore that webm.
            >WE WILL DE-
            >YES, HOWEVER

            >You project the US' capabilities onto Russia and China, and then make grand claims based on it.
            Dude it's understandable, I catch even myself doing it. Grab CMO sometime and try to make any sophisticated scenario that doesn't involve the US, or maybe the UK/Germany/France/Australia/Japan in some way. If you try to do something like a long distance strike mission as the Chinese you find yourself hamstrung because most of your jets have no fuel, shitty sensors, shitty weapons, and the PLAAF itself has barely any refueling capability. As the US on the other hand you can just go "ah yes I think I'll use 20 KC-135s from 3 different regions here" and it's completely fine AS YOU HAVE A VIDEO FROM 5 MONTHS AGO OF THE ACTUAL USAF DOING THAT.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      non-stealthy gotta go fast missiles only work against older systems with bad sensor fusion/horizontal integration. If the missile is detected by AWACS 200 nautical miles out and interceptors can be tasked on it from multiple vessels/aircraft, the situation changes considerably. Stealth is the future because it negates modern sensor fusion systems.

      The YJ-12 also requires a much bigger launch platform, can they fire those off of tactical aircraft?

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        according to wiki they can fire them off of the sukhois they have

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      You misspelled implessive.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >With modern battle management systems that is more then enough time to intercept it, and in fact with more than one attempt at it
      Moskva status?

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        I think anon is a fricking moron but I don't think that counts anon. The Moskva had a navalized S-300 onboard and two Top Domes, pic related, for fire control. It's a directional radar and can only fire on targets at one particular azimuth range. If you saturate it with multiple targets at different azimuths (which they did btw) you can basically force the S-300 operator to pick one, or two technically considering it has two Top Domes, and leave the rest to the rest of the battlegroup.

        Oh wait there was no battlegroup. The Moskva was alone.

        Anyway point is it's not a modern warship with a modern air defense system. Anon is moronic, but he's moronic for other reasons.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          An authentic-looking report that got leaked said that the Moskva’s defensive systems mostly didn’t work or were bugged along with a bunch of other systems that needed fixing. It was barely functional as a combat vessel and was probably not able to defend itself from even one anti-ship missile.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Even if it was fully operational, she hadn't seen a major refit or upgrade since the 80's. So its doubtful her systems would have performed well against a sea skimming threat like Neptune. Neptune is functionally similar to Harpoon and it was designed with systems like Moskva's in mind. System's like Moskva's are sort of the apex of pre-Aegis integrated AD systems. Its a collection of systems that are poorly integrated and rely on their own dedicated fire control. Not only is there a lack of fusion between them but there is also a lack of redundancy, the AK-630 CIWS can't even operate autonomously.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            I saw that too, it never got confirmed though so you can't tell if it's real. Either way the TACTICS USED to kill it stand up by themselves, we don't need to be Russians and fall back on cope that the Moskva was actually totally capable of defending itself (remember there are other Slava-class cruisers still operational), it was fricked by the tactics used in the first place. The Ukrainians themselves admit that they baited it into beginning an engagement by flying a Bayraktar near it (something its S-300 could absolutely kill) and then sneaking prototype Neptunes (which are sea skimming, ie 20-30 nmi-ish detection range based on radar horizon) towards a dead zone (ie where one Top Dome, but not both, could engage, remember this isn't a SPY-1 with 360 degree coverage), which left it basically unable to defend itself. It's likely that they never even saw it coming, or if they did, were unable to stop the engagement on the Bayraktar, drop lock, move the radar, find the Neptune(s), and begin, then finish an engagement before one or both hit.

            Even if it was fully operational, she hadn't seen a major refit or upgrade since the 80's. So its doubtful her systems would have performed well against a sea skimming threat like Neptune. Neptune is functionally similar to Harpoon and it was designed with systems like Moskva's in mind. System's like Moskva's are sort of the apex of pre-Aegis integrated AD systems. Its a collection of systems that are poorly integrated and rely on their own dedicated fire control. Not only is there a lack of fusion between them but there is also a lack of redundancy, the AK-630 CIWS can't even operate autonomously.

            Basically this.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        …it’s from the 70s you imbecile. It’s status was "broken" as per that leaked report I’m sure you remember.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      And you are assuming that Eastern militaries can detect western low observable munitions...why?

  7. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    I agree, Shadow the Edgehog has shown us how effective low-observable cruise missiles can be

  8. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    try having enough artillery shells and fuel first

  9. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    russian anti ship missiles are insanely good on paper too. But I guess those just tend to sit on the deck of the ship and contribute to magazine explosions these days

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      I know right? People hype up these missiles without knowing how they actually work. They can only maintain supersonic speeds up high where they can be easily spotted and shot down with Aegis. The sheer amount of energy required to make a missile go Mach 3 on the deck is impossible to carry. Even then Aegis still probably wouldn't have much trouble engaging them. Nobody understands how much work the US Navy has put into defending against missile threats to their ships it's mind boggling.

  10. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    How many of these could you rapid dragon with a C5?

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      theoretically

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        72
        Theoretically, of course :3

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        How many of these could you rapid dragon with a C5?

        C-130 gets somewhere around 45, and AFAIK a c-5 is roughly 3-4x the size and capacity of a c-130

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          we need to spam LRASMS like some autist playing RTS. devote more resources to LRASM production.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >we need to spam LRASMS like some autist playing RTS
            I just want pic real once, please
            > could the target be "Please wait a while before making a post"?

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >approx 158

          Sweet jesus. I hope one day they do it just for the lolz

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >how to sink entire fleets with this one weird trick!

  11. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Haha, F-25? What F-25? There's no F-25.
    Do not attempt to make inquiries.

  12. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >These zippy little shits are going to arrive at the opening hours of WWIII and absolutely frick your shit up.
    lmfao, so when do you open up the suez?
    when do these cringe "zippy little shits" un-frick international trade?

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Sorry did you think the suez canal was blockaded or something?

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Brownoid shills live in an alternate reality for the sake of their self esteem

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >Brownoid shills live in an alternate reality for the sake of their self esteem
          but enough about your life experience

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >Sorry did you think the suez canal was blockaded or something?
        lmfao, whatever you say you moronic shit-brain

        your little fricking fishing trawlers =/= fricking container-max ships

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >here's my poorly formatted graph with no sources or references designed to rage bait boomers, obviously your live gps info pales in comparison
          So it really is just an inferiority complex?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >obviously your live gps info pales in comparison
            exactly shit brain

            your "live GPS" is fricking meaningless fishing trawlers, and virtually NONE are fricking max-size container ships or max-size resource carrying ships
            Source?
            >https://www.imf.org/en/Blogs/Articles/2024/03/07/Red-Sea-Attacks-Disrupt-Global-Trade
            so good luck shit-braining your way out of that one

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              >Live gps data is just trawlers because I SAY IT IS NOW STOP PERSECUTING MY INSECURE BROWNOID SHILL POSTS
              The israelites won, you lost, sorry bud

  13. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    If you don't immediately understand how batshit insane LRASM is you're not qualified to post about this subject. LRASM is a nightmare weapon.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >LRASM is a nightmare weapon.
      Maybe for turdies. Its the weapon of my dreams.

  14. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    legend speaks of a myth that tells of rumored footage of a cruise missile cam flying through an iraqi city long forgotten

  15. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    LRASM is just the US version of the SCALP/Storm Shadow missile, which in Ukraine has been shot down by Russian IADS daily

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Go back to your MLP discord.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous
    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      SCALP Is closer to the JASSM baseline. LRASM is a significantly upgraded version of JASSM. It has much longer range and it much more sophisticated targeting. Also lol. lmao even.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      ...You mean the missile that tore appart the Russian Navy ships at Sevastopol last September?

  16. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    I could go on and on about how a stealthy AShM small enough to spam is something out of millitary horror stories used by old captains to scare fresh ensigns into paying attention on duty. I could come up with plausible fantasies of LRASMs tearing appart formations of PLAN torpedo boats. I could wax poetic about the US arms industry and the quality of comparable weapons like the JASM and their effectiveness in battle.

    But frankly, that would be tedeous and annoying so I'll just say the LRASM is pretty good and leave it at that.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *