Lockheed’s new low observable LRASM (Long Range Anti Ship Missile) is a cousin of JASSM will replace the AGM-84 Harpoon series as the Navy’s go-to anti-ship missile system. This video is basically all you get to know about LRASM, but in it you will see its most prominent feature is that it will “intelligently” sense and avoid hostile threats via an onboard passive radio frequency receiver, data link and advanced software programming. Basically, this thing will have enough AI onboard to survive via the dissemination of high-quality (see geolocation) electronic service measure/radar warning receiver data. This is for an expendable missile I remind you, so just imagine what we have when it comes to reusable unmanned platforms. Let’s just call this a teaser for my “Realities Of Drone Development” piece that will run soon after my “Netcentric Warfare 2.0” expose.

For more on the future of unmanned systems and cruise missiles read this popular post:

This entry was posted in News, Opinon, video and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.


  1. esmoore5 says:

    And, onthe other side of the fence, there are some who think we should
    stick with Tomahawk:

    Stick With The Tomahawk, Forget LRASM:

    And here’s a video of what the newest tricked-out Tomahawks can do:

    • says:

      Thanks for posting this, but there is a huge issue here Esmoore- Tomahawks are ship and sub launched heavy land attack missiles, to be used via nap of the earth flying, using low altitude, mission planning, now data links, and ground clutter to survive, LRASM is a totally different animal, it is a medium antiship missile that can be launched by ship or aircraft, with significantly less range and optimized for attacking heavily defended flotillas. Apples and oranges. Once again I am amazed by the ex-military folks they find to write these op-eds. Most have no clue what they are talking about, it is stunning. I cannot stress this enough, just because someone has medals and a uniform it does not mean they have an up to date wide spectrum view of technologies and strategies presented today. They are heroes for their service and probably the best and their specific job, but here we have a great example of defense reporting by people who do not even know these programs well enough to keep this from making it to print. We need survivable standoff munitions more than we need survivable tactical aircraft, and this gentleman is trying to compare a heavy land attack missile (with some surface warfare capability now) with a medium weight stealthy anti-ship missile? Laughable.

      I almost gave up this site because of this exact issue. I see people make some pretty big strides in this little area of journalism by pushing provocative articles that talk down to their readers, repost other peoples stuff after repackaging it, or even worse, just have no clue what they are talking about. It is frustrating. People may think this makes me sound like a know it all, but after putting my neck out there time and time again on stories that “come true” over on major sites weeks later, being fact checked by tons of major media outlets, and consulting on documentaries where I am directly correcting well known names in defense journalism’s mistakes constantly, it just gets old.

  2. Jehed says:

    Thank you for calling them on this. We need the whole picture to make sense of these issues and I for one would hate to see you leave and take your input with you.

Leave a Reply

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