Although there has been much attention given to the the guided 70mm rockets like CRV7-PG and APWKS II the LMM has quietly progressed, contract award was in April last year, is due for qualification testing this year, is expected to start production in 2013 and enter service with the Royal Navy from 2015.
As part of the Team Complex Weapons construct the LMM was ‘reversed’ into an existing production and long term support contract, thought to be for Starstreak. Because the threat that Starstreak is designed to counter is considered lower than when it was placed in production this seems like a sensible and flexible approach. Thales have a support contract with the MoD for Starstreak out to 2020 but it is not known if the commercial arrangements have also been modified to account for fewer of those missiles and the introduction of LMM, one would imagine its all in the small print.
Fulfilling the Future Air-to-Surface Guided Weapon (Light) requirement it will be one of the primary weapons of the maritime variant of the Wildcat helicopter.
AgustaWestland AW159 Lynx Wildcat
Aboard the Wildcat it has been shown in a couple of configurations, 5 and 7 round launchers.
Lightweight Multirole Missile - AW Wildcat
Thales Lightweight Multirole Missile - Wildcat
The initial production variant (that will be obtained in a quantity of 1,000) is the laser beam riding version.
The LMM is derived from the innovative Starstreak High Velocity Missile
Designed to attack small targets like inflatables, fast attack craft and surfaced submarines for example, what marks the LMM as something rather special is its relatively low cost, the motor for example was value engineered by Roxel to a specific cost and the guidance and much of the control system has been taken from the Starstreak.
The second distinguishing feature is its small warhead when compared to the larger Hellfire or Brimstone missile. This precise and low collateral damage warhead will allow it to be used against a much wider variety of targets. The warhead is a blast/fragmentation type weighing 3kg; compare this with 9kg on a Hellfire and 8.4kg on a Javelin.
The missile weighs 13kg and range is given as 8km with only a small minimal range, 400m, unlike the precision guided 70mm rockets that need a considerable distance. The fuse uses a laser proximity system and the missile itself is only 76mm in diameter with a length of 1.3m. The use of a laser proximity fuse is designed to allow the missile to be used against non-metallic targets, inflatable boats being the obvious example.
Thales Lightweight Multirole Missile
Thales have stated that a semi active laser seeker and anti-armour warhead would be relatively easy to integrate, the SAL seeker being recently test fired.
The laser beam riding guidance system means that the firer must remain focussed on the target and whilst this makes countering it difficult the firing platform has to remain exposed. Only one target at a time can be attacked with this guidance method which might limit its use against multiple swarms, however, this is a reasonable cost trade off and because it has a high speed, depending on range, this focus time may not be all that great.
The upgrade path, specifically a low cost semi active laser (SAL) seeker would allow the missile launch and target designation platforms to be different.
What intrigues me the most about LMM is its flexibility, being helicopter launched is just one of the means in which it can be used.
Air Launched
The LMM could also potentially arm the Watchkeeper unmanned system and is nominally slated to do so as part of the development path, although the extra weight might impact on performance in other areas it might be a reasonable trade off in some circumstances. Watchkeeper is already quite heavy compared to the design it is based on although engine improvements might also mitigate this extra weight.
For fleeting targets of opportunity it would offer something quite interesting and improve the flexibility of Watchkeeper, even if there would be an additional training burden.
LMM has been fired from a Scheibel Camcopter and shown on a BAE Systems Fury UAV
Fury UAV
If it can be used on Wildcat and Watchkeeper, why not Apache or the King Air 300 based Sentinels or even an A400, Harvest Hawk style?
One might even imagine a pair being used on the Base-ISTAR aerostats to provide a snap shot capability against fleeting targets, it has zero recoil when fired.
Maritime
The LMM has also been shown on a naval mount, Seahawk Sigma, as below, combined with a 30mm Bushmaster automatic cannon for naval applications. MSI are one of those low profile UK defence manufacturers that deserves to be heard about a lot more.
MSI 30mm mount with 7 LMM
MSI 30mm mount with 7 LMM
The Turkish company Aselsan has shown the LMM on a naval mount with 4 LMM’s
Aselsan Thales LMM
Aselsan teamed up with the patrol vessel maker, Yonca Onuk, to develop the two axis gyrostabilised mount and off mount electro optical director.
Land
Because the LMM has been designed to fit within the existing physical and electrical footprint of the Starstreak HVM missile it is not inconceivable that it could be used on the numerous launchers that have been developed or in use.
One such example is the Thor system, which could carry a mix of LMM and Hellfire as needed.
Aselsan have also shown a remotely operated weapon system (RWS) fitted with a 2 round LMM 12.7mm HMG combination.
Thales Lightweight Multirole Missile and 12.7mm HMG
In a land environment LMM could provide a lower yield alternative to Javelin in complex environments where precision and a reduced blast radius would be useful.
Perhaps even a new lease of life for the Stormer HVM vehicles.
Stormer High Velocity Missile
We can exploit the LMM across multiple domains, not just maritime.
I think the LMM has a great deal of export potential and of great utility across multiple platforms and environments, anyone else agree?
Sounds great: zero recoil, rocket-like size and weight and still all the pro’s of a missile
- whatever happened to the parallel programme (“heavy”)?
@ACC That’s it (proposed) in the foreground of the first shot labelled FASGW-ANL, as the assessment phase changed into a joint programme in 2009 so to incorporate the French requirements as well.
I believe MBDA recently froze the final design following testing at the end of last year. 2015 ISD.
ohhhh – “Aselsan teamed up with the patrol vessel maker, Yonca Onuk, to develop the two axis gyrostabilised mount and off mount electro optical director.” Throw in the combined gun/missile mount, combine with the bad boy below, and Bob’s your ubcle
http://www.yonca-onuk.com/products.asp?id=5
What about combining the LMM with the Spider LSV for our rapid reaction/commando forces?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Spider_LSV_with_SPIKE_ATGM.jpg
or maybe mount on the ATMP? It was tested with Milan…
http://www.supacat.com/files/pdf/Supacat-ATMP-specification.pdf
@GJ
Spider and IED don’t go too well together. Maybe something a bit more survivable?
FASGW Heavy is little more than an upgraded Skua with IR guidance; definitely effective against the patrol boat or corvette threat but with a maximum salvo of (presumably) 4 missiles from 1 Lynx it isn’t going to challenge a halfway competent self defence system.
LMM shows more potential against the really small targets; a Lynx airborne with LMM and a .50 cal makes a very capable force protection asset so long as it has adequate defensive aids. I suppose this gives the Wildcat a crossover capability into land ops so possibly making it a useful support asset for Apache in an amphibious landing scenario. Nice to see some common sense, common-Service development.
The Stormer HVM was made capable to fire LMM in addition to Starstreaks with the last upgrade, contracted for in 2009.
The ADAD was modified to provide thermal imagery for situational awareness on screens inside the vehicle, too.
It makes it a very interesting and flexible asset.
By the way, FASGW(H) is due to be given the go ahead jointly by France and the UK. It is specifically mentioned in the defence agreements signed yesterday.
UCAV studies, Telemos, and initial activities on Storm Shadow mid life upgrade also included.
MHPC and the parallel franch effort into future, stand-off, unmanned MCM systems are also being syncronized.
And France will trial the Watchkeeper, might buy it for its own army.
http://ukarmedforcescommentary.blogspot.com/2012/02/collaboration-with-france-new-deals.html
That was the support contract I mentioned in the post, it was for both HVM and Rapier out to 2020.
Read all about it here
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog:27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post:d1ecc53e-fafb-4a0e-bb62-f1aebd62b620
Good link. The Starstreak standard mentioned should be A5 (for the Royal Artillery), which is practically what on the market is called Starstreak II, with range extended to 7 km+ and better anti-drone capabilities, if i remember correctly.
I really like the LMM concept.
The MSI mount should be improved where it can and rolled out as the Navy’s main 2nd gun. That means the main gun on Mine Hunters and Patrol ships. How hard would it be to get Starstreak working on the same mount? Effectively giving these smaller ships effective anti-aircraft and small ship fire power. Four mounted on the sides of the Carriers would give them a fairly decent point defence weapon.
Going another way; how hard would it be to mount the MSI system on the top of a FRES(SV)/Warrior? UAV’s are going to be an increasing threat; a mobile launcher with LMM/Starstreak and a 30mm rapid firing gun could come in handy in lots of situations.
It is a nice weapon, just that my personal preference is for fire and forget or electro-optical radio or wire guided. Sitting around painting the target where it can fire back at you gives me a serious case of “ants in pants”.
Not that it is bad, it really is a nice weapon. It’s just personal antipathy towards overexposure.
As an AT weapon, it’ll probably behave something like a multi-roled TOW missile using laser instead of wire. And the TOW was very well recieved.
Observer, I’m with you on this one, in this day and age I’d have thought a fire and forget missile would have been on the cards, if not, and if you’ve got to sit out in the open, it’s difficult to jam a wire guided missile.
As for the TOW, I thought a later version actually dispensed with the wire altogether?
TD, spotter time, the Lynx with the 7-round launcher looks like a Super Lynx 300, not a Wildcat.
Observer, LMM doesn’t home in on a painted target. It’s a laser beam rider and operates in a similar manner to TOW – just keep the sight on the target.
I think a semi-active laser homing head would be a good idea for CAS and let the unit requesting the fire support do the designating.
ace, the rear stabilisers (the wings) on the main body not on the tail mark it out as a wildcat.
ignore my last looking at the picture!! you are correct for the reasons above. I’m adopting the press up position now
@Pete
Same problem isn’t it? You have to expose yourself for as long as the round takes to reach the target or it will lose guidance.
@Ace
I was thinking along the lines of electro-optical feedback radio or wire guided, you can park on a reverse slope or dig into a shellscrape, lob the round high, then have it drop onto the target without the LOS limitation of lasers. And it’s hard to jam a video camera.
The missile is properly called HVM for good reason. It’s very fast, must faster than anything wire guided. Control doesn’t ‘paint’ the target (that would be for a semi-active homing msl), if anything it’s probably fair to call it a beam riding missile, although purists might argue about that. However, the high velocity means that time of flight is very short, literally a handful of seconds at most. It’s not like the long flight of a ATGW or more conventional msl. Basically all the operator has to do is keep the target in the cross hairs for a few seconds.
The problem with arming existing UAS is if it has to return home without firing. This means the landing weight is greater and that’s when you have to beef up the undercarriage, which may have knock-on effects. Alternatively you have to expend the weapon load safely. That might be problematic in training. Watchkeeper is already the first UAS with airworthiness certification, for training in UK reasons, having to return to Boscombe Down with live weapons still on board is likely to cause even more teeth sucking.
…
Guys…
If a missile “rides” a beam to the target, what do you think is at the terminal end of the laser? Air?
I do take the point on the speed though, IIRC a Starstreak runs around Mach 5. Mach 3 is about 1km per sec, so it is about 1.6 km/s. Not a very long exposure time. Is the LMM Mach 5 too?
@Obsvr
No worse than the 1st generation Harriers.
Not quite the same problem, Observer. It’s true that the Laser needs line of sight but that doesn’t mean that the entire vehicle does. Like TOW or HOT, the sight could, at least in theory, be mast mounted.
“If a missile “rides” a beam to the target, what do you think is at the terminal end of the laser? Air?”
The missile, duh!
Like the LMM a lot, especially when combined with the SIGMA mount. Depending on the schedule for the MHPC the RN should be considering an upgrade of all MCM vessels to carry it, especially those in the Gulf.
One of the things that got value engineered down in LMM is the rocket motor, its not the same as the HVM and powers the LMM to about Mach 1.5, which is roughly the same speed as most modern ATGW
@ Observer – Some links about fibre-optic guided missiles:
http://www.g2mil.com/efogm.htm
http://www.g2mil.com/vigums.htm
@ Observer – another optic fibre guided missile link:
http://www.angelfire.com/art/enchanter/Suitcase_anti.html
@Gabby
I am getting rather fucked off with your constant ripping off of content from TD.
Your post on the UK/France agreement for example really is the last straw, amazing that after I do this post yours miraculously gets amended to include the same.
I allowed you to post here, I promoted your site from here and I allow you to continually link spam back to your site.
Not once have you apologised for the continual ripping off content from here, or anywhere else for that matter, despite me giving you plenty of opportunity.
In short, I have been more than gracious.
But that’s it, don’t fucking well bother posting any more comments here because I am going to delete them.
If that upsets any other commenters here then sorry, really I am.
But I am no longer going to tolerate the piss taking.
Don’t blame you.
Observer, Obsvr (?!) had a point, a beam rider has the laser receiver facing aft not forward. So long as the missile stays inside the beam, it’ll hit the target. Semi-active missiles have the receiver at the front and therefore home onto the reflection from the target. Semantics perhaps, but different control modes.
I was wondering how that worked!
does this mean i’ve got to stop selling my think defence t-shirts,baseball caps and mugs on ebay?
Paul, it was me that was bloody buying them off you
The LMM seems like an intelligent bit of thinking, of course it has a couple of downsides but are compromises and recognition of a more pragmatic mind set that sees getting reasonable kit into service in a reasonable time and at a reasonable cost is more important than the n’th degree of specification
Is it me or is the MoD starting to get a lot more things right lately?
@Pete
“Like TOW or HOT, the sight could, at least in theory, be mast mounted.”
That’s one possibility.
@SI
Yes I know. My main worry was requiring to maintain LOS to the target the whole of the Time to Target, which would allow nasty ill intentioned people to sweep your firing point with MG fire. How rude, distracting people like that when they’re trying to kill you.
In the laser homer, the laser needs to be kept on target. In a laser rider, your eyes have to be kept on target. Same effect in the end, though Pete did point out a good solution.
Wonder how these fare in smoke?
@TD
Is that what they call a self supporting industry?
Sorry TD, your last post came out before mine went up, the last comment was for the caps and tees :/
@GJ
Those were exactly what I was thinking about. No surprise there, some solutions are fairly universal, like fire and the wheel. Still remember the Cobra and Mamba systems, especially the “single operator-6 missiles” control system and the “pop up” attack. Thought it had a lot of potential.
I would argue that semi-active lasing would a great improvement, making it more like the Israeli LAHAT. The attraction of this is that you don’t even need the UAV to be carrying weapons, you just bolt a few onto the back of a truck. The unit being supported (Platoon/Company/Battalion) then just gets a nearby UAV equipped with a laser designator to guide in the missile.
Although you might need a relatively big UAV like WK450 to cart around a couple of rounds, if you just need a UAV with a designator, then something as small as the RQ-11B Raven can be used. As such, the Battalion can get its own air support, not being limited by the load capacity of a WK450, but by how much you can carry in a few trucks potentially! This has the potential to revolutionise close air support, by allowing a smaller scale version of what US Special Forces did in Afghanistan back in October/November 2001! This is where the (now cancelled) Netfires system would have made its mark, but also where a modified LMM could still make its own mark!
TD,
Just been working my way through this excellent post. Clicked on Gabby’s site and thought O FCUK! TD is not going to be happy with that.
Well done, as you say you warned him repeatedly.
Great post though!
Just for completeness. Whether the Stromer HVM was modified for LMM or fitted with THOR (which would have been great) they have all been removed from service. Leaving the Army with NO mobile air defences….
@Phil D
Ouch…
Maybe the newer CVR(T)s are expected to take over the role soon with more commonality between platforms?
LMM is twice as fast as TOW, which reduces counterfire concerns. But are they planning a manpacked version?
I’m still not sold on the value of LMM vs.the various guided Hydras (assuming they pan out). Shorter min range is nice but i imagine unguided CRV7s are pretty accurate up close.
Personally, I wonder whether we could have been better off buying the LAHAT – similar weight, ready etc… It would have had the following benefits:
- Ready now, no development period
- Already tested for helicopter, UAV and ground launch
- Capable of being used by the Challenger 2′s gun
- Warhead which is capable of defeating a tank, or a different warhead for other roles
- Only needs a laser designator, allowing off-board cueing, rather than beam riding
On a similar subject, I still think we made a mistake going for the Javelin, rather than the Spike family. The Spike family would have allowed us to replace Milan with Spike MR/LR (same mount), and TOW/Swingfire with the Spike ER. The Swingfire would simply have been retired, in favour of just bolting a Spike ER launcher onto a Spartan APC.
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?164326-Rafael-Unveils-Mini-Spike-Anti-Personnel-Guided-Weapon
@TD and others
I think we should give MBDA a lot of the credit, the UK end really seem to have got it together since Team Complex Weapons was set up. DM Brimstone is a great success (particularly if we can get the Frogs and Yanks to scrape together a few cents to buy it) – and has a credible upgrade plan ahead of it, with lots of commonality and sharing modules with other missiles. Fireshadow, LMM – I know missiles are easier to turn round than a 20-year carrier programme, but MBDA do seem to “get it”.
Having Bernard Gray in charge of procurement can’t hurt though, the man who’s criticised the MoD for its “substantially overheated equipment programme, with too many types of equipment being ordered for too large a range of tasks at too high a specification”. Sound familiar?
Talking about MBDA’s missiles:
http://defense-update.com/products/c/conceptvision_31122010.html
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/awx/2011/06/21/awx_06_21_2011_p0-338700.xml&headline=null&prev=10
The LMM is Thales not MBDA although I think the same applies
I feel I may make myself unpopular with this, but in Gab’s defence, my Google Reader time stamped his article “Collaboration with France” as published on 17th Feb at 3.56pm, and when I accessed it at 11.30am the next day, it had all the stuff about LMM in it then.
TD’s article on LMM was time stamped 18th Feb at 11.29, so if Gabs had plagiarised it in the meantime, he had, apparently, less than a minute to do it in before I saw it.
TD’s article on the “Anglo french Love In” then followed on 18th Feb at 2.21pm, and covered similar ground to the first half of Gab’s initial article.
Can we agree you can both run blogs covering current affairs and maybe sometimes great minds think alike? Also there are a very limited number of images worth the cut and paste for a lot of kit on the net, so it is not surprising you both end up with similar crops from time to time.
I know Gabs links to his own site in his comments, but to be fair he has TD as THE first recommended place to visit in his, the link to his site is usually relevant to justify and expand on his thinking, and in terms of views and weight of comments on each site, TD, you can afford to be truly magnanimous.
I enjoy both the sites and feel Gabs brings lots to the party so I would miss him if he were banned. I don’t know if he has systematically copied TD’s stuff but if there is evidence for this article, let’s hear it, and otherwise let’s just chill out a bit, please.
Where are those guys with the hair again TD?
Ant, it will not make you unpopular at all.
If this was a genuine coincidence then I am man enough to admit it and say sorry
Not sure how long you have been following TD Ant but it has been going on for quite some time and it gets to the point where it gets a bit grating to be honest, leading to me being a bit sensitive about it, perhaps over sensitive
There have been many many instances, some obvious and some more subtle.
I also like reading his stuff and find his contribution interesting but you will note I like to offer original content, not rip offs from other peoples hard work.
On images, yes, you are right about common images etc but you will notice wherever an image is unusual I ask permission, go and read the bridging series for example, lots of images there with relevant attribution.
This is not always possible due to the nature of these things but at least I make the effort.
Putting a link in the blogroll does not excuse it and I have repeatedly asked him to account for previous very clear cut instances of blatant content pilfering.
Perhaps I have over reacted and maybe I am wrong but over reactions happen for a reason
So, apologies to Gabby and fair point Ant
IIRC HVM is more like Mach 3 than 5, ie about 1000 m/s. Either way a msl operating at about Mach 1.5 should be adequate for targets at up to about 15% fast jet speed (on a very good day).
Technically (msl guidance 101) I think HVM is SACLOS, using laser instead of RF as the control signal bearer.
The most interesting announcement out of MoD in the last many months is owning up to Exactor in service in RA hands in Afg. The consensus seems to be that Exactor is Spike NLOS. It will be interesting to see how this experience affects future requirements and how it affects UAS arming. (Why arm UAS if the operator can send a CFF with target image via FC-BISA for a NLOS strike; or be given terminal control of NLOS?)
Have they officially owned up to it Obsvr?
@TD
Just entered this article now and saw the rage post. I can assure you that i did not copy a single image or word from here.
I’m pretty sure that i did post my article on the deals with France before you, even though i edited it once or twice afterwards to add more detail and the LMM images since i felt it would be interesting to.
I only saw your own article on LMM afterwards. I have no idea which one went online first, but i took absolutely nothing from here, and i can swear it without any hesitation.
Funnily, when i entered here and found the LMM article after having posted mine, i kind of thought WTF myself.
“they [Stormer HVM] have all been removed from service.”
As far as i am aware, no. Their number has been very much reduced, but 12 Royal Artillery regiment still has 2 batteries on the Stormer, one for each Division in the army, plus at least one battery on tripod-launchers for the light and rapid reaction forces, 3rd Command excluded since the commandos have their own Starstreak troop in 30 IEX Commando.
This also according to Royal Artillery briefings relatively recent and released post SDSR.
If you have more up to date info, i would love to know more.
On the other hand, the Stormer-Shielder minelayers have been retired as part of PR10 or PR11. Those are not around anymore for real.
Gabby
As I said, if I am wrong then I owe you an apology but its not like you don’t have a long track record of being light fingered with content from here is it?
Just as a side thought, where did you get that image of the Sigma mount from?