Register here

Author Topic: LRSO (Long Range Standoff) Cruise Missile  (Read 9769 times)

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8386
LRSO (Long Range Standoff) Cruise Missile
« on: March 09, 2010, 10:06:13 am »
Pentagon Eyes More Than $800 Million for New Nuclear Cruise Missile
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
By Elaine M. Grossman

WASHINGTON -- The U.S. Air Force plans to spend more than $800 million to build a new nuclear-armed cruise missile for its bomber aircraft, according to little-noticed details buried inside the Obama administration's fiscal 2011 budget request delivered last month to Capitol Hill (see GSN, Dec. 16, 2009).
A "Follow-on Long-Range Stand-off Vehicle," or LRSO for short, would replace 375 aging AGM-86B Air Launched Cruise Missiles, expected to retire from the fleet by 2030. The Defense Department has estimated the new effort could cost a total $1.3 billion, Global Security Newswire has learned.
"The current system is experiencing obsolescence of parts [and] components," the Air Force stated in one budget document. "Missile components and support equipment are becoming non-supportable."
The service is closely monitoring "critical components" -- such as the missile's fuse, guidance and electrical power systems -- for age-related malfunctions, according to the text. It calls a service life extension of the Air Launched Cruise Missile "essential" to meeting war-plan requirements.
At the same time, the Air Force is conducting an "analysis of alternatives" aimed at weighing technical options for replacing the AGM-86B, which was first deployed in 1982. The document shows that the Pentagon is expected to make a formal acquisition decision around October 2012 on how to proceed.
The budget documents indicate a service intention to sharply ramp up research-and-development funds for the nuclear-capable weapon between fiscal 2013 and 2015, culminating in an estimated half-billion dollars to be spent on the LRSO effort in fiscal 2015 alone.
For the near term, though, the Air Force is requesting $3.63 million in 2011 to complete the ongoing technical studies on the new cruise missile.
Inclusion of the funds in the White House budget request is sure to rankle lawmakers on the left flank of President Barack Obama's political base, who have supported his commitment to taking "concrete steps" toward the eventual global elimination of nuclear weapons. Obama laid out this vision in a major speech last April in Prague, an event frequently cited as helping him win a Nobel Peace Prize.
On the other side of the aisle, Republicans can be expected to welcome the cruise missile plans as a potential indication of the administration's intent to modernize the U.S. nuclear arsenal. The Senate's entire GOP contingent in December told Obama that their support for the president's arms control agenda would rest on his commitment to funding modern replacements or updates for U.S. nuclear weapons (see GSN, Dec. 17, 2009).
Today's Air Launched Cruise Missiles are launched from the B-52 bomber, which is slated to remain in service through 2040. The aircraft can carry six cruise missiles under each of its wings and eight internally on a rotary launcher, giving each B-52 a capacity of 20 missiles.
The cruise missile flies roughly 550 mph and has a range of more than 1,500 miles, allowing the bomber to stand off at a safe distance from its target.
Though a future LRSO weapon's capabilities have not yet been publicly defined, a new cruise missile might be expected to ride aboard either a B-52 bomber or a future Long-Range Strike aircraft, which could be manned or unmanned (see GSN, Dec. 18, 2009).
Whether the future bomber itself proceeds -- and on what time line -- is uncertain. It is also not known yet if a new aircraft would be nuclear-weapon capable, like today's B-52 and B-2 planes, or instead be limited to conventional missions, like today's B-1 bomber.
The Defense Department is expected to announce its plans for a future Long-Range Strike aircraft as part of a major Nuclear Posture Review. The congressionally directed review of atomic forces, strategy and readiness has been repeatedly delayed but is anticipated for release in the coming weeks (see GSN, March 1).
Air Force budget documents for the first time include a funding line item for development of the new bomber. Budget dollars for the aircraft rise on a schedule roughly parallel to the proposed new cruise missile. The service expects to fund the new bomber at nearly $200 million in fiscal 2011, with program expenditures totaling $1.74 billion through 2015.
The service has not revealed exactly how it would use these large sums over that period or when bomber production would begin. Nor has the Air Force officially divulged a total program cost estimate for the proposed new bomber or an LRSO cruise missile.
The documents submitted to Congress on Feb. 1 state that Air Force studies on how to maintain the Air Launched Cruise Missile "identified system components that cannot be sustained beyond the initial missile service life," but that date has long since passed.
When the missile first entered the fleet in 1982, its service life was expected to be 10 years, according to a Pentagon official's response to written questions from Global Security Newswire. In 1998 -- six years after that anticipated retirement date -- the Air Force began a "service life extension program."
Current expectations are that "the Air Launched Cruise Missile will be retained through FY-20 with an option through FY-30," the official said in an e-mailed response, released on condition of anonymity. "Presently, ALCM is mission-ready and sustainable through 2030."
At the same time, the Defense Department appears to be leaving open the possibility that some of the first cruise missiles to enter the force might encounter age-related malfunctions prior to 2030.
"The ALCMs will age out as limited life components fail," the Pentagon official stated, without offering specifics. "Additional future investment and [service life extension program] actions would determine the actual time frame for obsolescence."
To keep the bomber leg of the nuclear triad useful and viable in the years to come, the Air Launched Cruise Missile must be replaced with a new weapon that offers similar stand-off launch capability, according to Christopher Ford, a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute.
"You don't want to fly B-52s over anything but tribal militias these days. That's a good way to lose B-52s," he said in an interview last week, suggesting the bombers are increasingly vulnerable to advanced surface-to-air missile technologies. "Hence we need a stand-off capability."
In fact, without a nuclear cruise missile, the utility of the bomber leg of the triad could significantly decline and eventually disappear, according to some issue experts. Lacking an ALCM replacement, the Pentagon could ultimately convert all its bombers to solely conventional use, leaving the nation with a "dyad" of submarine-launched ballistic missiles and ICBMs, insiders say.
Ford commended the Obama team for taking steps to ensure that key facets of the nuclear arsenal remain viable into the long term, even if that means alienating liberals in the White House's political base.
"This would be an interesting wrinkle that the Obama administration is at least contemplating modernizing nuclear delivery systems," Ford said. "The United States has been the only major world power not modernizing its delivery systems."
Others argue there is no urgent need for Washington to modernize its nuclear delivery platforms because they remain quite capable today and could continue functioning reliably for years to come.
"I think the president has quite clearly said no new nuclear weapons," said Hans Kristensen, who has closely tracked annual funding for a cruise missile replacement. Though liberal and conservative pundits alike tend to focus on whether and how nuclear warheads are modernized, "a nuclear warhead won't have much effect without a delivery platform," he said.
Kristensen, director of the Federation of American Scientists' Nuclear Information Project, said that even if the Nuclear Posture Review envisions a continued role for a nuclear-armed bomber for the time being, funding the future cruise missile would seem to "fly in the face of the president's pledge."
"Who are we kidding?" he said in an interview last week. "We're telling the world we're not going to produce new nuclear weapons, and in the first budget of the administration there is a new nuclear weapon."
In fact, the Pentagon official also would not rule out the possibility that a replacement cruise missile could carry a warhead other than the W-80, which is fitted on today's Air Launched Cruise Missile and on the Navy's Tomahawk Sea-Launched Cruise Missile. The latter weapon system is widely expected to retire soon from the U.S. arsenal (see GSN, Feb. 22).
The Air Force suspended an effort to extend the service life of the W-80 warhead in fiscal 2006, deferring work to what the Bush administration at that time anticipated would be a multiservice Reliable Replacement Warhead. The pause in the W-80 overhaul also allowed the nuclear complex to initiate a life-extension effort on another warhead, the Navy's W-76 weapon, the Pentagon official said.
Though Congress ultimately eliminated the RRW effort -- citing concerns that the new warhead could undermine Washington's nonproliferation objectives -- work to refurbish the W-80 has not resumed, according to the Defense Department.
The service has "archived" its previously conducted study of W-80 life-extension options, pending a "possible late FY-11 restart decision," according to the Pentagon official.
"While the W-80 is an obvious candidate" for use in a weapon that replaces the Air Launched Cruise Missile, "the LRSO study will help inform that decision," the official said.
Should the W-80 remain in the U.S. arsenal, it is likely to require another major life extension beginning in the 2030 time frame -- just as the last Air Launched Cruise Missiles retire -- according to a 2008 planning document compiled by the Energy Department's National Nuclear Security Administration.
That document, obtained by GSN, shows initial studies beginning late in fiscal 2029 and overhaul work on the nuclear explosive package and firing set commencing in 2036.
==============================================================================================
Now I'm just waiting for "New ICBM to be Funded" and "New Nuclear Weapons to be Funded"  ;)
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline Grey Havoc

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 7646
  • The path not taken.
Re: LRSO (Long Range Standoff) Cruise Missile
« Reply #1 on: March 09, 2010, 01:50:38 pm »
I suspect that Obama plans to try to pull a fast one on the LRSO. Using a mostly phantom project as bait to get Republicans and certain others to support his pet Arms reduction treaty and other related ill-advised measures and then letting the project evaporate. I don't think the GOP (or indeed the so-called Blue Dogs) would fall for such a maneuver though.

If Obama and Gates were serious about replacing the ALCMs, there would be far cheaper alternatives to a drawn-out development program, the most simple of which would be to resume production of AGM-129s (Gates would probably have a major personal problem with this though) or, if finances were very tight (or reputations needed to be preserved), upgraded new build AGM-89s might be an acceptable, albeit, necessarily short term alternative. Rebuilds of existing ALCMs are right out for obvious reasons.
« Last Edit: March 09, 2010, 02:00:39 pm by Grey Havoc »
The sole imperative of a government, once instituted, is to survive.

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8386
Re: LRSO (Long Range Standoff) Cruise Missile
« Reply #2 on: March 09, 2010, 09:59:23 pm »
The big roadblock to any new arms control treaty is 67......senators, that is, needed to ratify. There was a letter sent from 41 senators - all 40 Republicans and Lieberman (before Scott Brown was elected) saying in effect "there will be no ratification of a follow on to START unless you put in front of us your [Obama's] detailed plan to modernize AND FUND the nuclear weapons enterprise and delivery systems.

Some politicians are worried that not having built or tested a nuclear weapon for 20 years might affect the validity of our deterrent posture.  I happen to strongly agree with the senators. Besides, as I have said before, there is no reason to cut our arsenal below the 2200 deployed warheads of the "so called" Moscow Treaty (no reason to go this low, but I digress).
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline Avimimus

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1820
Re: LRSO (Long Range Standoff) Cruise Missile
« Reply #3 on: March 10, 2010, 06:17:02 am »
If Obama and Gates were serious about replacing the ALCMs, there would be far cheaper alternatives to a drawn-out development program, the most simple of which would be to resume production of AGM-129s (Gates would probably have a major personal problem with this though) or, if finances were very tight (or reputations needed to be preserved), upgraded new build AGM-89s might be an acceptable, albeit, necessarily short term alternative. Rebuilds of existing ALCMs are right out for obvious reasons.

You're assuming of course that the existing designs would stand a chance against modern/future air-defences. The point of such systems is deterrence and that requires certainty that most of the weapons will get through. It isn't like such systems are designed to be used operationally in conditions of air superiority with suppressed air defences (in which case a modified C-130 or Silver Plate would do).

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 10721
Re: LRSO (Long Range Standoff) Cruise Missile
« Reply #4 on: March 10, 2010, 10:11:35 am »
If Obama and Gates were serious about replacing the ALCMs, there would be far cheaper alternatives to a drawn-out development program, the most simple of which would be to resume production of AGM-129s (Gates would probably have a major personal problem with this though) or, if finances were very tight (or reputations needed to be preserved), upgraded new build AGM-89s might be an acceptable, albeit, necessarily short term alternative. Rebuilds of existing ALCMs are right out for obvious reasons.

You're assuming of course that the existing designs would stand a chance against modern/future air-defences. The point of such systems is deterrence and that requires certainty that most of the weapons will get through. It isn't like such systems are designed to be used operationally in conditions of air superiority with suppressed air defences (in which case a modified C-130 or Silver Plate would do).

ACM (AGM-129) was designed with the USSR in mind and would likely do fine (reliablity aside anyway).
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 10721
Re: LRSO (Long Range Standoff) Cruise Missile
« Reply #5 on: March 10, 2010, 10:13:38 am »
I suspect that Obama plans to try to pull a fast one on the LRSO. Using a mostly phantom project as bait to get Republicans and certain others to support his pet Arms reduction treaty and other related ill-advised measures and then letting the project evaporate.

This right here. 

"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline Grey Havoc

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 7646
  • The path not taken.
Re: LRSO (Long Range Standoff) Cruise Missile
« Reply #6 on: September 20, 2016, 02:06:33 am »
I suspect that Obama plans to try to pull a fast one on the LRSO. Using a mostly phantom project as bait to get Republicans and certain others to support his pet Arms reduction treaty and other related ill-advised measures and then letting the project evaporate.

This right here.

And so it has proved. Twice now.
The sole imperative of a government, once instituted, is to survive.

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2025
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: LRSO (Long Range Standoff) Cruise Missile
« Reply #7 on: August 23, 2017, 02:04:36 pm »
DOD Contracts for  Aug. 23, 2017

AIR FORCE

 

Lockheed Martin Corp., Orlando, Florida, has been awarded an approximately $900,000,000 cost-plus-fixed-fee contract for the Long Range Standoff weapon's technology maturation and risk reduction acquisition phase.  The contract supports replacement of the AGM-86B air-launched cruise missile.  Work will be performed in Orlando, Florida, and is expected to be completed by 2022. Air Force Nuclear Weapons Center, Air Delivered Capabilities Directorate, Eglin Air Force Base, Florida, is the contracting activity.

 

Raytheon Co., Tucson, Arizona, has been awarded an approximately $900,000,000 cost-plus-fixed-fee contract for the Long Range Standoff weapon's technology maturation and risk reduction acquisition phase. The contract supports replacement of the AGM-86B air-launched cruise missile. Work will be performed in Tucson, Arizona and is expected to be completed by 2022.  Air Force Nuclear Weapons Center, Eglin Air Force Base, Florida, is the contracting activity. Air Force Nuclear Weapons Center, Air Delivered Capabilities Directorate, Eglin Air Force Base, Florida, is the contracting activity.

*my emphasis
« Last Edit: August 23, 2017, 02:08:54 pm by marauder2048 »

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 10721
Re: LRSO (Long Range Standoff) Cruise Missile
« Reply #8 on: August 23, 2017, 02:26:11 pm »
I wonder if it will be a variant of JASSM and if it will be as stealthY as the AGM-129 was.  (Which begs the question, any ideas on relative stealthiness between the two?)
« Last Edit: August 23, 2017, 04:23:27 pm by sferrin »
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline Pioneer

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1517
  • Seek out and close with the enemy
Re: LRSO (Long Range Standoff) Cruise Missile
« Reply #9 on: August 23, 2017, 04:04:49 pm »


If Obama and Gates were serious about replacing the ALCMs, there would be far cheaper alternatives to a drawn-out development program, the most simple of which would be to resume production of AGM-129s

Agree 110%!!!
Makes sense to me  :P

Regards
Pioneer

And remember…remember the glory is not the exhortation of war, but the exhortation of man.
Mans nobility, made transcendent in the fiery crucible of war.
Faithfulness and fortitude.
Gentleness and compassion.
I am honored to be your brother.”

— Lt Col Ralph Honner DSO M

Offline Airplane

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 398
Re: LRSO (Long Range Standoff) Cruise Missile
« Reply #10 on: August 23, 2017, 05:48:01 pm »
Didn't we already have a new stealthy alcm and it was retired?
"The test of success is not what you do when your on top. Success is how high you bounce when you hit bottom.”
– General George S. Patton

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 10721
Re: LRSO (Long Range Standoff) Cruise Missile
« Reply #11 on: August 23, 2017, 06:32:25 pm »
Didn't we already have a new stealthy alcm and it was retired?

AGM-129.  No idea why they retired it.

"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8386
Re: LRSO (Long Range Standoff) Cruise Missile
« Reply #12 on: August 23, 2017, 11:57:50 pm »
Didn't we already have a new stealthy alcm and it was retired?

AGM-129.  No idea why they retired it.
Cause it was an icky 'Cold War' nuke and the USSR had fallen and peace would be with us forever. See: Peacekeeper retirement, Midgetman cancellation, SRAM II cancelled, B-2 production cut, no new R&D, testing or construction of new warheads..............
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline Airplane

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 398
Re: LRSO (Long Range Standoff) Cruise Missile
« Reply #13 on: August 24, 2017, 05:22:11 am »
Didn't we already have a new stealthy alcm and it was retired?

AGM-129.  No idea why they retired it.
Cause it was an icky 'Cold War' nuke and the USSR had fallen and peace would be with us forever. See: Peacekeeper retirement, Midgetman cancellation, SRAM II cancelled, B-2 production cut, no new R&D, testing or construction of new warheads..............

Absolutely insane!!! Makes no sense at all. I remember following it from just an idea in the 80s to prototypes being built... From what I could gather from public sources.

This was the biggest asinine decision. It was already fielded, unlike Midgetman, and unlike Seawolf.................. It would like us today scrapping all 180 Raptors.

"The test of success is not what you do when your on top. Success is how high you bounce when you hit bottom.”
– General George S. Patton

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 10721
Re: LRSO (Long Range Standoff) Cruise Missile
« Reply #14 on: August 24, 2017, 05:32:12 am »
This was the biggest asinine decision. It was already fielded, unlike Midgetman, and unlike Seawolf.................. It would like us today scrapping all 180 Raptors.

Last I heard they were getting rid of the B83s as well. (Another asinine decision.)
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.