LRASM

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

LRASM

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Operations series >> LRASM

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

LRASM - 1/16/2014 8:04:38 PM

mikeCK

Posts: 565
Joined: 5/20/2008
Status: offline

Is the VLS long range anti-ship missile modeled for use by the Zumwalt destroyers and future US combat ships in scenarios from 2015 onward or are they still relegated to using box launched harpoons

Post #: 1

RE: LRASM - 1/16/2014 8:29:22 PM

ComDev

Posts: 5735
Joined: 5/12/2006
Status: offline

The weapon is not used by default but you can add the 'weapon records' to the VLS' and load the weapon manually.

_____________________________

Developer "Command: Modern Air/Naval Operations" project!

(in reply to mikeCK)

Post #: 2

RE: LRASM - 1/17/2014 1:41:56 AM

mikeCK

Posts: 565
Joined: 5/20/2008
Status: offline

Ok, but it is modeled in the game? Excellent. The real US navy at feel confident fighting the Chinese navy with harpoons (they shouldn't) but I sure dont

(in reply to ComDev)

Post #: 3

RE: LRASM - 1/17/2014 2:25:06 AM

RoryAndersonCDT

Posts: 1830
Joined: 6/16/2009
Status: offline

Hey, the USN went to war with the Mk14 torp. I'm sure they are going to be fine with the harpoon.

_____________________________

Command Dev Team
Technical Lead

(in reply to mikeCK)

Post #: 4

RE: LRASM - 1/17/2014 3:06:42 AM

IWS

Posts: 60
Joined: 12/28/2013
Status: offline

The USN seems to have stopped adding harpoons to its new ships (e.g. Flight IIa Burkes). I've been wondering about that-- seems counter-intuitive. Everyone and their brother is using harpoons mounted on just about everything.

Speculatively, they may be thinking 4 or 8 subsonic harpoons just won't get through 1st or 2nd world air defense + point defense anymore. In addition to harpoon's limited range.

But the US has lots of Standard Missiles. Though those may not sink a ship, they have a good chance of getting a mission kill under the same circumstances. A "free Brahmos", as it were.

But the (subsonic) LRASM has defensive ECM, which helps quite a bit
The (pending) VLS version of the C (jammer) variant of the AGM-160 MALD could help too, especially since 4 of them can fit in a single VLS tube.

(in reply to RoryAndersonCDT)

Post #: 5

RE: LRASM - 1/17/2014 3:36:03 PM

jtoatoktoe

Posts: 208
Joined: 10/9/2013
Status: offline

There is a possibility of a new Tomahawk in the works too, though it seems like the LRASM is already going to be the winner as its had testing and such already. I still hate the slower speeds though. The LRASM-B would have been a nice speedy weapon had they gotten it to where they wanted it.

(in reply to IWS)

Post #: 6

RE: LRASM - 1/17/2014 6:23:02 PM

Showtime 100_MatrixForum

Posts: 29
Joined: 9/25/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: IWS

The USN seems to have stopped adding harpoons to its new ships (e.g. Flight IIa Burkes). I've been wondering about that-- seems counter-intuitive. Everyone and their brother is using harpoons mounted on just about everything.

Speculatively, they may be thinking 4 or 8 subsonic harpoons just won't get through 1st or 2nd world air defense + point defense anymore. In addition to harpoon's limited range.

But the US has lots of Standard Missiles. Though those may not sink a ship, they have a good chance of getting a mission kill under the same circumstances. A "free Brahmos", as it were.

But the (subsonic) LRASM has defensive ECM, which helps quite a bit
The (pending) VLS version of the C (jammer) variant of the AGM-160 MALD could help too, especially since 4 of them can fit in a single VLS tube.

The USN's primary offensive ASuW weapons are submarines and aircraft, as far as I'm aware. I know that some (all? most?) Standards can be used in an anti-shipping role. During Operation Praying Mantis, the USS Simpson (FFG-56) and the USS Wainwright (CG-28) fired RIM-66 and RIM-67s at the Iranian Kaman-class fast attack craft Joshan, which destroyed its superstructure (although it didn't immediately sink). It doesn't take much of a warhead to destroy radars and mission-kill ships.

I think that the USN has decided that point defense is either good enough or will soon be good enough that the benefits of hypersonic long-range SSMs outweigh the drawbacks; they've decided that the LRASM is better off as a stealthy subsonic missile with DECM instead of being super/hypersonic but having a larger RCS, greater thermal signature, and less ability to maneuver.

While I admit that cancelling the supersonic LRASM was a disappointment to me (because, c'mon, missiles are REALLY COOL), I can see why it makes sense. The USN doesn't suffer as much from the lack of long-range SSMs as navies without the same number of air and submarine assets do.

(in reply to IWS)

Post #: 7

RE: LRASM - 1/17/2014 10:42:21 PM

JRyan

Posts: 555
Joined: 3/29/2005
Status: offline

Harpoon is so 80's...its time..

(in reply to Showtime 100_MatrixForum)

Post #: 8

RE: LRASM - 1/18/2014 3:21:38 PM

mikeCK

Posts: 565
Joined: 5/20/2008
Status: offline

You still need to be able to kill a ship over the horizon fr your ship.....harpoon sucks..it's slow and underpowered. LRASM has eccm, a big warhead and long range..... Most importantly it can be fired from the vertical launch rocket system in the new destroyers harpoon cannot

< Message edited by mikeCK -- 1/18/2014 4:24:55 PM >

(in reply to JRyan)

Post #: 9

RE: LRASM - 1/18/2014 3:55:45 PM

jdkbph

Posts: 339
Joined: 2/11/2007
From: CT, USA
Status: offline

I was just wondering...

As far as I know, there are two main things that set LRASM apart from other anti-ship missiles. One being it's ECCM suite, and the other being it's autonomous targeting capability.

I'd imagine the ECCM can be accounted for easily enough, but does the game account somehow for it's ability to discriminate between different contacts in the target area and, without external guidance or precision intel on the intended target's actual position, identify and attack the right one?

I haven't noticed anything in the interface that would allow for that.

JD

(in reply to mikeCK)

Post #: 10

RE: LRASM - 1/18/2014 4:08:56 PM

Dimitris

Posts: 13282
Joined: 7/31/2005
Status: offline

Yes, it has an IIR sensor with classification ability. This automatically makes it a "brilliant" weapon, ie. able to independently determine its intended primary target among a cluster of contacts. The SLAM-ER ATA also has a similar capability.

There is another reported aspect of LRASM's AI which is very interesting, the ability to autonomously (not via pre-set waypoints) route around pop-up threats. This is not currently modeled in Command but we'd like to add it at some point in the future.

_____________________________

Facebook
Twitter

(in reply to jdkbph)

Post #: 11

RE: LRASM - 1/18/2014 4:30:26 PM

jdkbph

Posts: 339
Joined: 2/11/2007
From: CT, USA
Status: offline

Thanks D.

Admittedly, I don't know exactly what this all means in terms of employment, but it sounds like you can tell it to attack (eg) an aircraft carrier (or perhaps even a specific aircraft carrier), point it at a blob of ECM contacts where you think that aircraft carrier may be, and shoot. It will then fly to, find and attack the aircraft carrier.

That's why I was wondering about the interface. Seems like this would need a drop down or some way to identify the specific desired target or target class, pre-launch, without an actual target contact showing on the board.

Is this our understanding of how it really works? And is this reproducible in game? If so, that would be very cool.

Thanks

JD

< Message edited by jdkbph -- 1/18/2014 5:31:31 PM >

(in reply to Dimitris)

Post #: 12

RE: LRASM - 1/18/2014 4:40:45 PM

Showtime 100_MatrixForum

Posts: 29
Joined: 9/25/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sunburn

Yes, it has an IIR sensor with classification ability. This automatically makes it a "brilliant" weapon, ie. able to independently determine its intended primary target among a cluster of contacts. The SLAM-ER ATA also has a similar capability.

There is another reported aspect of LRASM's AI which is very interesting, the ability to autonomously (not via pre-set waypoints) route around pop-up threats. This is not currently modeled in Command but we'd like to add it at some point in the future.

Here's a video by Lockheed that can probably be best described as LRASM-porn, which does show it routing around pop-up threats. The REDFOR ship shown in the beginning of the video looks suspiciously like this ship to me!

(in reply to Dimitris)

Post #: 13

RE: LRASM - 1/18/2014 5:56:46 PM

bgeery

Posts: 25
Joined: 9/27/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sunburn

There is another reported aspect of LRASM's AI which is very interesting, the ability to autonomously (not via pre-set waypoints) route around pop-up threats. This is not currently modeled in Command but we'd like to add it at some point in the future.

This would be a good ability for the AI in general. For example, an aircraft on a strike mission routes around a newly detected SAM site on its way to the target.

< Message edited by bgeery -- 1/18/2014 6:57:41 PM >

(in reply to Dimitris)

Post #: 14

RE: LRASM - 1/18/2014 10:24:09 PM

IWS

Posts: 60
Joined: 12/28/2013
Status: offline

Tricky to implement though, the AI would have to be able to distinguish between "valid threats" and "spam units" based on ESM signatures. It would also need to know when/how to ignore the threats and go for it anyway. Context.

Otherwise you can use low-value spam units' radar to "herd" the LRASMs in the direction you want them to go.

(in reply to bgeery)

Post #: 15

RE: LRASM - 1/20/2014 7:42:31 PM

mikeCK

Posts: 565
Joined: 5/20/2008
Status: offline

I'm just glad weapons designed to be implemented in the future are modeled. Well done guys!

(in reply to IWS)

Post #: 16

RE: LRASM - 1/21/2014 10:14:57 PM

RoryAndersonCDT

Posts: 1830
Joined: 6/16/2009
Status: offline

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kl4ffgPu6qc

_____________________________

Command Dev Team
Technical Lead

(in reply to mikeCK)

Post #: 17

RE: LRASM - 1/21/2014 10:33:49 PM

mikmykWS

Posts: 11524
Joined: 3/22/2005
Status: offline

Little reality. Looks like a bit more time on everything.

http://breakingdefense.com/2014/01/navy-seeks-rail-guns-lasers-cruise-missiles-to-improve-pacific-firepower/

_____________________________

(in reply to RoryAndersonCDT)

Post #: 18

RE: LRASM - 1/21/2014 11:01:28 PM

RoryAndersonCDT

Posts: 1830
Joined: 6/16/2009
Status: offline

I do like the sound of vertically launched harpoons; and you can easily add harpoon weapon records to a VLS mount in command. : )

< Message edited by Baloogan -- 1/22/2014 12:01:38 AM >

_____________________________

Command Dev Team
Technical Lead

(in reply to mikmykWS)

Post #: 19

RE: LRASM - 1/21/2014 11:26:03 PM

mikmykWS

Posts: 11524
Joined: 3/22/2005
Status: offline

Yeah you can mount whatever you want in the game.

Mike

_____________________________

(in reply to RoryAndersonCDT)

Post #: 20

RE: LRASM - 1/22/2014 4:16:30 AM

mikeCK

Posts: 565
Joined: 5/20/2008
Status: offline

You can fill VLS magazines with harpoons???! I thought they were incompatible and could only be fired by box launchers

(in reply to mikmykWS)

Post #: 21

RE: LRASM - 1/22/2014 4:19:14 AM

RoryAndersonCDT

Posts: 1830
Joined: 6/16/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mikeCK

You can fill VLS magazines with harpoons???! I thought they were incompatible and could only be fired by box launchers

Well, they are incompatible. But you can modify platforms in the editor mode in Command.

_____________________________

Command Dev Team
Technical Lead

(in reply to mikeCK)

Post #: 22

RE: LRASM - 1/22/2014 9:38:09 PM

mikmykWS

Posts: 11524
Joined: 3/22/2005
Status: offline

They are but Command doesn't restrict it. You can mount a Shipwreck on Boghammar if you wanted. Counts do matter in records though.

We understand the limitations but ignored it on purpose. If we implemented real restrictions 95% of modified ships would turn turtle or short out