Land Attack Standard Missile and Harpoon Block II

[Chris Werb]

You misunderstood my post.

 

Ooops!

 

What I said is the only change to the warship is a software update.

 

Assuming your quoted costs are correct, you get 3 LASM for the cost of 1 ATACMS.

 

The figures are probably in the right ball park.

 

Plus a ATACMS is overkill for many targets.  Great for attacking numbers of massed units but would be a complete waist against a single artillery emplacement or shore based anti-ship missile launcher.

 

There is a unitary ATACMS now - some have even been fired in anger.  Part of the argument for unitary is reduced collateral damage (and no dud bomblets).

 

Again, the idea behind the LASM is to use some of the ~1200 surplus SM-2 missiles to provide warships with land strike capabilities.

 

What I can't understand is how a modified SAM ends up being c. $300k a round (some other estimates I've seen in the past were around the $100k mark) for a conversion (assuming 800 rounds converted) whereas the mods to make an MLRS rocket guided cost between $30k (threshold) and $14k (objective).

[Guest pfcem]

There is a unitary ATACMS now - some have even been fired in anger.  Part of the argument for unitary is reduced collateral damage (and no dud bomblets).

229576[/snapback]

 

Still overkill though.

 

 

What I can't understand is how a modified SAM ends up being c. $300k a round (some other estimates I've seen in the past were around the $100k mark) for a conversion (assuming 800 rounds converted) whereas the mods to make an MLRS rocket guided cost between $30k (threshold) and $14k (objective).

229576[/snapback]

 

I also do not know how the LASM modification could cost anywhere near that much. The only thing I can think of is that the guidance package is more costly then I would suspect. Another possibility is that a significant amout of the developement cost for a future weapon is being tacked on to the per unit cost for the LASM.

[ross.browne]

Still overkill though.

I also do not know how the LASM modification could cost anywhere near that much.  The only thing I can think of is that the guidance package is more costly then I would suspect.  Another possibility is that a significant amout of the developement cost for a future weapon is being tacked on to the per unit cost for the LASM.

229591[/snapback]

 

Probably the same procurement system that takes a decade to develop a maritime patrol mission system and shoe-horn it in to an existing airframe.

[FITZ]

Well, like I said, it did not contribute to more VLS spots useful for Standard AAM. That was and probably remains the essential criterion for the USN.

228599[/snapback]

 

 

That still doesn't fly because there is currently a glut of VLS cells - there are more cells than weapons (of all types) to fill them and it has been that way for several years.

[Chris Werb]

That still doesn't fly because there is currently a glut of VLS cells - there are more cells than weapons (of all types) to fill them and it has been that way for several years.

229609[/snapback]

 

There was more magazine capacity than weapons in pre VLS days. They got around this by swapping out weapons from ships returning from deployment to ships scheduled to deploy. Is that not still the case?

[ross.browne]

That still doesn't fly because there is currently a glut of VLS cells - there are more cells than weapons (of all types) to fill them and it has been that way for several years.

229609[/snapback]

 

I suspect this is probably only true of the US Navy.

[Josh]

There was more magazine capacity than weapons in pre VLS days.  They got around this by swapping out weapons from ships returning from deployment to ships scheduled to deploy.  Is that not still the case?

229639[/snapback]

 

AFAIK 'cross decking' is still very much practiced.