LRASM (Full Version)

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



Message

mikeCK -> LRASM (1/16/2014 8:04:38 PM)

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



ComDev -> RE: LRASM (1/16/2014 8:29:22 PM)

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



mikeCK -> RE: LRASM (1/17/2014 1:41:56 AM)

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



RoryAndersonCDT -> RE: LRASM (1/17/2014 2:25:06 AM)

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



IWS -> RE: LRASM (1/17/2014 3:06:42 AM)

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.



jtoatoktoe -> RE: LRASM (1/17/2014 3:36:03 PM)

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.



Showtime 100_MatrixForum -> RE: LRASM (1/17/2014 6:23:02 PM)


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.



JRyan -> RE: LRASM (1/17/2014 10:42:21 PM)

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



mikeCK -> RE: LRASM (1/18/2014 3:21:38 PM)

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



jdkbph -> RE: LRASM (1/18/2014 3:55:45 PM)

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



Dimitris -> RE: LRASM (1/18/2014 4:08:56 PM)

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.



jdkbph -> RE: LRASM (1/18/2014 4:30:26 PM)

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



Showtime 100_MatrixForum -> RE: LRASM (1/18/2014 4:40:45 PM)


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!



bgeery -> RE: LRASM (1/18/2014 5:56:46 PM)

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.



IWS -> RE: LRASM (1/18/2014 10:24:09 PM)

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.



mikeCK -> RE: LRASM (1/20/2014 7:42:31 PM)

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



RoryAndersonCDT -> RE: LRASM (1/21/2014 10:14:57 PM)

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



mikmykWS -> RE: LRASM (1/21/2014 10:33:49 PM)

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/



RoryAndersonCDT -> RE: LRASM (1/21/2014 11:01:28 PM)

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



mikmykWS -> RE: LRASM (1/21/2014 11:26:03 PM)

Yeah you can mount whatever you want in the game.

Mike



mikeCK -> RE: LRASM (1/22/2014 4:16:30 AM)

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



RoryAndersonCDT -> RE: LRASM (1/22/2014 4:19:14 AM)


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.



mikmykWS -> RE: LRASM (1/22/2014 9:38:09 PM)

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[:)] Players tend to be bit optimistic.

Mike



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
2.1875