Thread on the US Navys most elegant missile: AGM-158C LRASM, stealthy AI-powered ship killer

Thread on the US Navy’s most elegant missile: AGM-158C LRASM, stealthy AI-powered ship killer

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    In the mid-2000s, the US Navy concluded that the legacy Harpoon would not be enough anymore in light of the worsening security environment at sea, along with the rise of the People’s Liberation Army’s Navy as a credible near-peer adversary. The US needed a new ship-killer.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      https://i.imgur.com/2KQS0Xd.jpeg

      Due to the urgency of the situation, an interim solution, the Offensive Anti-Surface Warfare Increment 1, would offer a quick fix before Increment 2 delivered a long term more capable system. OASuW inc 1 became the Long Range Anti-Ship Missile, LRASM.

      https://i.imgur.com/WDBM17r.jpeg

      The main requirements for LRASM were to offer significantly more range than Harpoon, greater survivability and increased autonomy in detecting, identifying and engaging moving targets at sea thanks to on-board sensors.

      https://i.imgur.com/ZwrFuoh.jpeg

      The program was established as a DOD 5000.2 Model 4 accelerated acquisition program after a March 2008 urgent operational request. DARPA got to work and selected Lockheed as a sole-source contractor in 2009.

      To save time, LRASM would be based on the Air Force’s AGM-158B JASSM-ER, in development since 2002. The increase space taken by electronics reduced the fuel tanks back to the standard JASSM ones, from 950km+ to 370, still a big upgrade over the Harpoon’s 140-220km.

      https://i.imgur.com/5hP6HwV.jpeg

      The development was initially split between two competing approaches: LRASM-A betting on stealth with a low flying subsonic missile, and LRASM-B going the traditional Russian route with a supersonic highflying missile. The LRASM-A was chosen in 2012

      based

      >seething """country""" whose subs can't stay submerged without serious risk of death b***hing in 3...2...1

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        What is this? Who hates this missile?

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Countries that will get their shit pushed in by it.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Are you moronic? What the frick are you malding about? Fricking mindbroken tourist.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Going underway on a Flt-2a DDG in the aughts and learning your anti-surface capability was a single 5" gun not integrated into a surface search radar was one of the worst vibes imaginable.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Spoken like a true member of OD DIVwith a gundecked ESWS pin.
        SM-2s are perfectly capable in surface engagements.
        MK 160 receives targeting information from C&D. This isn't Jutland.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Flt-2a DDG
        >learning your anti-surface capability was a single 5" gun not integrated into a surface search radar
        This is just wrong though.

        > The Mk 34 GWS was developed to improve the Arleigh Burke-class destroyer's ability to use the Mk 45 gun against a variety of threats. It is different from previous gun fire-control systems in that it was developed under a one-system concept and is a fully integrated subsystem of Aegis. The Aegis Command and Decision (C&D) system issues target engagement orders to the Mk 34 GWS.
        > The ship's main radar (e.g., AN/SPY-1D on Flight I–IIA Arleigh Burke-class destroyers, AN/SPY-6 on Flight III Arleigh Burke-class destroyers) is the primary source of target data. The secondary surface search radar (e.g., AN/SPS-67 on earlier Arleigh Burke-class destroyers, AN/SPQ-9B on later Arleigh Burke-class destroyers) serves as a secondary source of targeting information. The Mk 46 OSS or Mk 20 EOSS supplements the radars. These sensors work together to provide high-quality target data to the GMP (Gun Mount Processor).

        I'm pretty sure all Flight II/IIA Burkes had this installed (or an earlier but similar version) during initial construction.

        Maybe if you were on an older Tico, but even those would've used the Mark 86 GFCS which could engage two surface targets using AEGIS sensor inputs (SPY-1 and SPG-60)

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        is this what the older guys tell the new kids to make them shit their britches?

        The US has had digital computerized fire control tied into primary (and secondary) radar and other sensors, since the 1970's or '80s.

  2. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Due to the urgency of the situation, an interim solution, the Offensive Anti-Surface Warfare Increment 1, would offer a quick fix before Increment 2 delivered a long term more capable system. OASuW inc 1 became the Long Range Anti-Ship Missile, LRASM.

  3. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The main requirements for LRASM were to offer significantly more range than Harpoon, greater survivability and increased autonomy in detecting, identifying and engaging moving targets at sea thanks to on-board sensors.

  4. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The program was established as a DOD 5000.2 Model 4 accelerated acquisition program after a March 2008 urgent operational request. DARPA got to work and selected Lockheed as a sole-source contractor in 2009.

    To save time, LRASM would be based on the Air Force’s AGM-158B JASSM-ER, in development since 2002. The increase space taken by electronics reduced the fuel tanks back to the standard JASSM ones, from 950km+ to 370, still a big upgrade over the Harpoon’s 140-220km.

  5. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The development was initially split between two competing approaches: LRASM-A betting on stealth with a low flying subsonic missile, and LRASM-B going the traditional Russian route with a supersonic highflying missile. The LRASM-A was chosen in 2012

  6. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The IR signature reducing measures, low radar cross-section and the effort made to reduce emissions down to the minimum, short pulses for the datalink, ensure LRASM’s stealth and survivability.
    Guided by GPS complemented by INS to defeat potential jamming, LRASM uses a multimodal sensor suite combining passive radar-detection with an IR sensor augmented by software, relying on a large threat library to precisely identify priority targets within a group of ships.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Gotta love a networked anti ship missile

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Using a Slava class as the target
      Hehehe

  7. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Contrary to what some have claimed here, LRASM can and will hit precise area of your ship, DARPA made sure of that. These capabilities were validated in the missiles’ first test flight on August 27th 2013.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >launch missile in war
      >it veers off and precisely hits civilian shipping containers because it's what it was trained to do

  8. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Additionally, LRASM is a team player and will be able to coordinate attacks with multiple missiles. This was recently demonstrated for the Integrated Test Event 12 on April 3rd 2024, with a flight of 4 missiles

  9. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    LRASM is certified for use with the B-1, F/A-18, and is currently being integrated on the F-35 and P-8. While currently only planned for air-launches, it has been certified in 2014 for Mk 41 VLS use, using the ASROC’s booster, and deck mounted angled canisters in 2017

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      What are the advantages of deck mounted launchers over the VLS system, if any?

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I don’t think there any advantages except maybe it can be set up on a ship that doesn’t have strike length VLS cells. Something like the type 45 comes to mind

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Deck mounted launchers can be slapped onto almost any ship with deck space.

        VLS systems require a ton of interior space inside the ship and basically means it's only going on Burkes or Constellation-class in the near-term.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Mm. What, very roughly speaking, is the smallest displacement hull that *would* accommodate a pair of VLS launchers? The Constellation has four -- what if I am willing to cut that in half and have a pair of your box launchers for anti-shipping stuff?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mogami-class_frigate

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Beautiful. That's almost exactly what I had in mind for a modern DE. And Christ knows if the balloon goes up with China we're going to need them. But no, we need to flounder around immersed in delays and cost overruns and environmental impact reports and everybody bawling about COOOOOVIIIID. Frick.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Yup, right around half a billion, fairly low manning requirements, and japan has proven they can lay them down and commission them within 2.5 years.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                That makes me tear my fricking hair out.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                https://i.imgur.com/rS17aaF.png

                Yup, right around half a billion, fairly low manning requirements, and japan has proven they can lay them down and commission them within 2.5 years.

                To be fair, the first 8 boats were built without VLS cells (though I think they're getting them added).

                The next 12 are being built with VLS cells from the start which might extend the build/commissioning timeframe, though I doubt it'll stretch more than ~6 months.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Yes, the first VLS ships should be in service by the end of the current financial year in japan.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                So taking the Chinese approach of laying down hulls and filling them in like office cubicles? I mean, if you’re not actually going to go to war why not?

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Sorta, but the japs at least aren't suffering from massive graft problems so the ships are actually decent at the end of the day.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Looks lime a really clean updated FFG-7.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        The deck launcher is for smaller ships that can't fit VLS or older ships that lack the cells. Similar to how box launchers were added to the old Iowa class BB's in the 80's. This would be appealing for someone like Taiwan who has a flotilla of smaller missile boats.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Cost on two counts - ship and missile integration. Deck launchers allow for larger missiles and also allow placement in a wider variety of locations to distribute weight. Cost is very much at the fore though.

        Type 45 uses Sylver not mk41 but it does have room for strike length cells. Anti ship missiles are also generally not strike length.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Type 45 uses Sylver not mk41 but it does have room for strike length cells.
          Now they just need to install them
          >Anti ship missiles are also generally not strike length.
          This one likely is because range is a priority so the booster will probably be bigger than a normal ASM

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >This one likely is because range is a priority so the booster will probably be bigger than a normal ASM

            LRASM is a fairly short missile - as you'd expect for something air launched. At 4.2m it's shorter than SM-2 so it could be made to fit in a tactical mk41 cell. No one has procured VLS LRASM so we only have a concept - where it's strike length - but only because of the addition of a booster that goes beyond the regular VLS out and up to speed before dropping off. IIRC it was an asroc booster they used rather than something purpose built. There's no need to make a weapon longer than needed and reduce the number of cells it can be used in.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              I'm a bit confused. You can or you cannot fire LRASM from a Mark 41 VLS as is? And if you can, what is the range difference if you stick the ASROC motor on it?

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                You cannot. The jet engine doesn't produce enough thrust to take off vertically. You have to have a booster to get it out of the cell and into the air so that its wings can deploy and the jet engine can spin up. I think the other anon was referring to using a smaller booster than the off-the-shelf ASROC booster. I'm not sure how small you could go and still get the missile up to enough speed and altitude to reliably deploy.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        1) Not applicable here, since LRASM has been cleared for (but not purchased for) Mk 41 use: you can fit larger-diameter missiles in a bespoke deck launcher.
        2) It frees up VLS cells for more SAMs. 8 LRASM cans frees up almost 10% of the cells on a Burke, or 25% on a Connie.
        3) You can mount cans on a ship like LCS that was never built for VLS.

        The downside is that a deck mount is more exposed to both the weather and to damage. Ask the Russians what happens when somebody scores a hit to your deck-mounted missile launchers. Also, it's less space-efficient than VLS, so while it's easy enough to stick a few cans on the corner of the fantail or between the smokestacks where a VLS might not fit, if you covered a ship in cans you'd fit a lot fewer missiles than you could with a VLS battery.

        So, in short, the best option is probably to fit as many VLS cells as you reasonably can, and then find a space where you can slap 4-8 angled cans for ASCMs on top of that.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Also, it's less space-efficient than VLS,

          Not really true, below deck internal space is at a huge premium compared to above deck external space. You can stick them on a superstructure roof vs giving up mess/engine/tank space internally.

  10. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    In FY22 development started on the C-3 variant with increased range, also known as LRASM-ER. Land strike capability was considered but it was decided to focus on its anti-ship mission instead with range and target library improvement. EOC is planned for 2026.

  11. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The latest figures I could find mentioned a target of 488 LRASMs for the Air Force and 727 for the Navy, including a request in PB25 for 523 LRASM-ER between FY25-29.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >LRASM-ER between FY25-29.

      https://i.imgur.com/h8aw885.jpeg

      The LRASM will continue to be the Navy’s high-end ship-killer until the OASuW Increment 2 comes online, with EOC planned for FY29, also known as the Hypersonic Air Launched Offensive Anti-Surface (HALO)

      >EOC planned for FY29, also known as the Hypersonic Air Launched Offensive Anti-Surface (HALO)

      lmfao, YET EVEN MORE
      >planned
      >expected 2030
      >in development
      US vaporware garbage

      do you people have ONE
      even ONE single weapon system actually in deployment?

      ...just one?

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        LRASM is in service. ER is the extended range version

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        You caught us. The entire US military is completely unarmed and unequipped. Soldiers have to order ubers just to get around base. Our ICBM silos are black circles painted on the ground like Wile E. Coyote shit. The M1 Abrams is a parade float we stuck a drain pipe on top of. SEAL Team Six is a bunch of kids stacked under trench coats.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        LRASM is in service and this is a roadmap for the upgrades. Learn to read english if you want your rupees.

  12. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The LRASM will continue to be the Navy’s high-end ship-killer until the OASuW Increment 2 comes online, with EOC planned for FY29, also known as the Hypersonic Air Launched Offensive Anti-Surface (HALO)

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >until
      I think there will always be a place for subsonic stealthy and hypersonic airbreathing missiles. Especially in a combined attack where defenders have to choose interceptors for each missile group.

  13. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Quality thread

  14. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    “Stealthy”, “low-observable” is meaningless. In a peer war you’re stealth or you’re nothing. A LRASM will be detected and intercepted just like everything else and being subsonic the enemy will have minutes, not seconds, with which to do it.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >A LRASM will be detected and intercepted just like everything else and being subsonic the enemy will have minutes, not seconds, with which to do it.
      Source? Shartshadows and SCALP seem to have no problem fooling the Russians

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Ok

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      What is the difference between stealthy and stealth? Do you actually think stealth means total invisibility?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      KEK. Russia's most modern radars and interceptors in the S-400 are unable to detect HIMARS GMLRS, ATACMS, MALD, oe Storm Shadow. Russia is ahead of China in radar design. Which is why China had Russia design and build thier new Early Warning radat system. If the S-400 can't stop obsolete US missiles, China isn't going to be able to either.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Isn’t the point of MALD to be detected?

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          That tells you how bad their radars really are.

  15. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    They should test these out on what's left of the black sea fleet

  16. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It seems to me that the main problem with LRASM is that the stealth allows protection from being detected much further out than a standard AShM but the sheer power output of more modern ship borne AESAs means it will still get detected far enough away to fire off point defense missiles at least a few miles out. It almost looks like if you actually calculate the time from detection + number of munitions you can shoot that supersonic mach 3 sea skimmers and stealth missiles are about equivalent. I genuinely have started to think that with peer conflicts maybe some radar reduction techniques (like latest block tomahawks) combined with a booster for fast terminal approach is the smart way

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      It's not just a matter of output power; it's also a matter of processing power to identify the returns and recognize that a threat is inbound. Then, it's a question of how alert the crew is, how fast the system can respond, and how good the interceptors are.

      Given the close distances that Burkes have been shooting down Houthi missiles at, it seems like effective engagement ranges are far shorter than in CMANO, no matter what the interceptors' maximum ranges are. Shrink those ranges even further with stealth features as on the LRASM and NSM/JSM, and things could get very interesting for an opponent very quickly.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        The major benefit of stealth is that you don't need gigantic missiles. A single f18 can carry up to 4 (more realistically just 2) LRASMs so a CSG can become a gigantic zone of death instead of relying on burkes for all your killing power

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          While Burkes are good at killing and I think SM is massively underrated as an antiship missile, its not their main job. Their job is to protect the carrier so its planes can do the ship killing.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            They did cripple an Iranian ship during Operation Praying Mantis so its more combat tested than 90% of anti-ship missiles including the HYPERSONIC-ULTRA DEATH MISSILES that seem to get all the rage

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            My concern with SM is that it uses basically a modified ballistic trajectory in surface mode, which (at least for a technically-competent enemy) should be relatively easy to intercept. A stealthy sea-skimmer like LRASM or JSM should be, in theory, much more difficult for an enemy to stop.

            Of course, against Russian tech, it may not matter. Against Chinese? I have no idea.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        You do make a good point. I think the reality is that for low-flying, small objects radar has a hard time seeing them and there’s only so much that can be done with signal processing. It could very well be all those Houthi drones are actually being tracked by optical sensors and would explain why that Burke was forced to go to CIWS against one a few months back.

  17. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Is this thing going to be sold/given to the Ukrainians?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      MAYBE a handful for testing, but we don't have enough to send more than a couple unless we wanted to have barely any stocks of our own.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >MAYBE a handful
        It seems that's all it would take to have a significant impact on the Russian Black Sea fleet.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Given a fair number of their ships are in the very sea that a set of 100% non-stealth Neptune cruise missiles just traversed—with complete impunity—before striking ground targets within Russia, I think we can say a stealth solution is now overkill for the Black Sea Fleet. Ukraine will sink what remains of that fleet once those ships take priority over oil terminals and other war-economy targets.That is inevitable.

          Tangential to that, I do wonder if the Chinese are at least vaguely aware they need to completely abandon Russian/Soviet AA solutions and create something 100x better to deal with western stealth.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Tangential to that, I do wonder if the Chinese are at least vaguely aware they need to completely abandon Russian/Soviet AA solutions and create something 100x better to deal with western stealth.
            They're aware but are hopeful they can still use the existing systems as a base for any new system without doing a ground-up re-do on the entire concept.

  18. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Any news on this HALO Increment 2 thing?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      found this
      https://www.twz.com/air/navys-halo-hypersonic-anti-ship-missile-planned-for-ships-submarines-as-well-as-jets

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        it just occurred to me, couldn't you use an Ohio as an arsenal ship and just integrate it into a CBG or a tin can task force? you can stick 7 tomahawks in a Trident tube, 24 tubes gives you over 150 cells that's more than a fricking Tico.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Keep reading Wikipedia and you'll catch up with 20 years ago.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I'm talking about the specific use case. If you stick more than tomahawks in there then what you do with them is different. what does that look like operationally? do you stick a bunch of standards or ESSMs and pop up for fleet defense? do you run it out ahead and have it work as part of your strike package against an enemy TF?
            can you do a post-launch handoff with Aegis?

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              You can only fit Tomahawks in those tubes. They aren't mk41 cells.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                dude, I'm talking about replacing them with VLS cells which are 7.7 meters long for the striker version. Trident missiles are 13.4 meters long. maybe you could only fit 6 for the additional components you need for venting or whatever and you'd be limited to launching them from the surface, but that's over 120 available cells. seems like a decent use of a hull as new ballistic missile subs get made.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Subs are not defensive weapons. They "escort" ships by roaming out ahead and sinking anything that looks like a threat. While having a AAW sub sounds cool, it would cost far too much for what you get. Those tubes are better used for offensive weapons in order to strike enemy ships and ground targets from stealth. This also provides a bit of conventional deterrence, as well; the USN has used ports of call for its SSGNs strategically at times, to let the PLAN know that they're operating in the neighborhood.

                As for converting the remaining boomers as they're replaced, that's unfortunately not a realistic option. The Ohios are getting very old, and trying to keep them in service will just get more and more expensive each year--and more importantly, there's only a [CLASSIFIED] amount of nuclear fuel left, and refueling is *very* expensive and time-consuming (which is why the USN has switched to reactors that have near-bomb-grade fuel that can last for 40+ years without refueling). The Ohio SSGNs will be retired at about the same time as the remaining SSBNs. Plans are to replace them with a larger number of Block V Virginias, each carrying a third or so of the number of TLAMs as the SSGNs. That should increase the flexibility and availability of the SSGNs while still giving each sub a fair bit of firepower (40+ TLAMs).

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Err, just to be clear, I should have specified that there's only a certain amount of usable nuclear fuel left *within each Ohio's reactor*. I would hope that that would be apparent, but I didn't mean to cause any confusion on that point.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Doesn't the Virginia payload module give you basically the same capability?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Yes, and the VPM is supposedly what they're using as the base for the hypersonic missile launchers for the Zumwalts. The APM as it's being called (advanced payload module) should be installed in DDG-1000 and ready for testing sometime in 2025.

  19. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    dude, could you just not be such a fricking sperg all the time?

  20. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    DARPA’s Chong-bonger. The sinkinator. Hey mister missile u see that corvette I don’t wanna.
    Ok boss zoom boom
    Chinese warship has a big hole in it. Chinese CIWS was like Brrap?

  21. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >an actual informative thread
    >on /k/
    Okay what’s the catch

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >>an actual informative thread
      Its basically just wiki with some pictures.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        And yet, it’s informative

  22. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    if it's so good, why it's not deployed in Ukraine yet?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Probably too expensive to just give away. Plus if it shits the bed (which it shouldn't, but you never know), it'll kill international sales.

  23. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The LRASM is nice but OP is a wienersucker.

  24. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    anon atleast post the lockheed promo video for it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h449oIjg2kY

  25. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    yeah i saw that twitter thread too

  26. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    why is America so incredibly good at war machines?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      $800 billion a year

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Holy shit that's almost as much as a big box store's budget. Really makes you think.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous
          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            it's about 30% more than the highest on the list.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            those vitol numbers are sus wtf

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      $800 billion a year

      and the world's largest pool of legitimate scientists and engineers.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      A truly Absurd procurement budget, a press free enough to keep the MIC honest, a standard of living good enough for most engineers, and institutional experience with international arms dealing that started with supplying France, Britain, and Russia during the World Wars and never really stopped.

  27. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Reality check: The interest on our national debt is now $1 trillion per. fiscal quarter and climbing.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Debt isn't a problem as long as the economy keeps growing. Literally business 101 oh it's not your debt, chink.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >buy treasury bonds
      >collect interest
      I don't see the problem.

  28. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    chuck the ukes a couple of these will ya

  29. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Love me some JASSM/LRASM

  30. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Always thought the combination of being stealthy as well as small enough to spam was genius. Not only do you have a tiny window to intercept them but you can also expect dozens of LRASMs coming at you at once.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      and potentially being dropped from C-17s or C-130s especially if you're using the extended range variant.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Now I need to research how many LRASMs you can Rapid Dragon from a C-17.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Assuming it's the same as for JASSMs, it's 12 in the C-130 and 45 in the C-17.
          Though you'd probably want to deploy some decoys like the ADM-160C along side to provide even more problems for enemy AD.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            If we're talking strike composition it makes more sense to load the decoys on the cargo planes and send in B-1s with the LRASMs. With 24 missiles per B-one and dedicated ECM it's the better option for getting into 500 km.

  31. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >AI powered
    Frick these buzzwords. What is this supposed AI doing? Networked missiles were a thing before people tacked AI onto every single thing.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      the fart huffer found himself another obsession

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