Register here

Author Topic: LRSO (Long Range Standoff) Cruise Missile  (Read 9751 times)

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8385
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: 7636
  • 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: 8385
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).

Online sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 10715
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.

Online sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 10715
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: 7636
  • 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 »

Online sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 10715
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: 395
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

Online sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 10715
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: 8385
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: 395
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

Online sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 10715
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.

Offline Airplane

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 395
Re: LRSO (Long Range Standoff) Cruise Missile
« Reply #15 on: August 24, 2017, 06:40:56 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.)

Had not heard that one my friend. 

At least we're getting a new cruise missile. Now we just need to replace the Tomahawks with a LO design.

Why not just copy what we did with the last one (structural/engine) with upgraded EE? Save money and save time.

You know, even we if we had only kept 150 of the LO ALCMs that we had as a silver bullet force to arm the dash-2a and dash-1b with them.... We would be better off.

Question: Can anyone speak to the flight profile of the 129? Did is still fly nap of the earth or did it have a different flight profile because it was LO.... namely higher altitude for less fuel consumption and longer range?
« Last Edit: August 24, 2017, 06:45:48 am by Airplane »
"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 Moose

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 807
Re: LRSO (Long Range Standoff) Cruise Missile
« Reply #16 on: August 24, 2017, 10:52:55 am »
Didn't we already have a new stealthy alcm and it was retired?

AGM-129.  No idea why they retired it.
SORT Treaty obligations required us to reduce the number of nuclear cruise missiles. We could have retired a larger part of the AGM-86 run and kept a mixed inventory, but chose instead to kill off all the AGM-129s since it cost more to maintain and had more persistent reliability issues than ALCM. The hope with the new weapon is to completely replace the -86, but that was the plan with the -129 before Bush I killed it so there's no way to be certain until after it's been done.

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2025
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: LRSO (Long Range Standoff) Cruise Missile
« Reply #17 on: August 24, 2017, 12:22:00 pm »
Wasn't there a provision of some treaty that precluded converting AGM-129s into conventional cruise missiles?

Online sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 10715
Re: LRSO (Long Range Standoff) Cruise Missile
« Reply #18 on: August 24, 2017, 01:13:42 pm »
Wasn't there a provision of some treaty that precluded converting AGM-129s into conventional cruise missiles?

That would be odd considering it's okay to convert AGM-86s.  ???
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2025
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: LRSO (Long Range Standoff) Cruise Missile
« Reply #19 on: August 24, 2017, 01:18:45 pm »
Wasn't there a provision of some treaty that precluded converting AGM-129s into conventional cruise missiles?

That would be odd considering it's okay to convert AGM-86s.  ???

The CALCM conversion happened before START/SORT though.

Offline Moose

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 807
Re: LRSO (Long Range Standoff) Cruise Missile
« Reply #20 on: August 24, 2017, 11:23:51 pm »
Wasn't there a provision of some treaty that precluded converting AGM-129s into conventional cruise missiles?
Not ACM, as far as I know the possibility of a conventional variant died when production of the airframe ended early. Rebuilding them to a conventional role after 2007 was seen as an outsize cost for a limited inventory if weapons.

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2025
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: LRSO (Long Range Standoff) Cruise Missile
« Reply #21 on: August 26, 2017, 12:12:26 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?)

I've seen one azimuthal RCS plot in a MITRE publication relative to Tomahawk/ALCM.



Question: Can anyone speak to the flight profile of the 129? Did is still fly nap of the earth or did it have a different flight
profile because it was LO.... namely higher altitude for less fuel consumption and longer range?

The implication from "Advanced Cruise Missile Guidance System Description" by Hicks is that ACM
had a higher altitude penetration profile but could/would perform TF  during various
mission segments particularly the terminal stage.
« Last Edit: August 26, 2017, 12:16:40 pm by marauder2048 »

Offline Flyaway

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1450

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2025
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: LRSO (Long Range Standoff) Cruise Missile
« Reply #23 on: October 24, 2017, 06:07:02 pm »
Lockheed 2017 Supplier Conference

Offline Airplane

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 395
Re: LRSO (Long Range Standoff) Cruise Missile
« Reply #24 on: October 24, 2017, 06:17:56 pm »
New nuclear cruise missile program appears safe going forward

http://www.defensenews.com/digital-show-dailies/air-force-association/2017/09/19/new-nuclear-cruise-missile-program-appears-safe-going-forward/

I should hope so, or else we wont have any nuclear cruise missiles when the 86s reach their end of life. Cruise missiles should be pretty much safe from the congressional ax because congress likes to ask why we need stealth bombers when we can just launch cruise missiles offshore with conventional platforms. Even democrats like cruise missiles because they can launch them at aspirin factories when in the middle of a scandal thereby giving the image of being a "hawk".

"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 Grey Havoc

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 7636
  • The path not taken.
Re: LRSO (Long Range Standoff) Cruise Missile
« Reply #25 on: October 27, 2017, 03:16:42 am »
The Washington Business Journal just reported that NG elected to No-bid on LRSO as well.


Similar to 3DELRR and MQ-25, NG was awarded (cost-plus) risk-reduction/concept definition contracts
with the expectation that they would ultimately bid.

It's become a bit of a pattern.
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 #26 on: October 29, 2017, 09:08:30 pm »
"The Long-Range Standoff (LRSO) Cruise Missile And It's Role in Future Nuclear Forces"

http://www.jhuapl.edu/ourwork/nsa/papers/LRSO.pdf

Dennis Evans and Jonathan Schwalbe

The United States has a nuclear triad that consists of ballistic missile submarines
(SSBNs), land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), B-52 bombers,
and B-2 bombers. The non-stealthy B-52 relies entirely on the AGM-86 Air-
Launched Cruise Missile (ALCM) in the nuclear role, whereas the B-2 penetrates
enemy airspace to drop unguided bombs. The current SSBNs, ICBMs, ALCMs,
and B61 bombs will all reach end of life between the early 2020s (for the
B61 bomb) and the early 2040s, whereas the B-52 should last until at least 2045
and the B-2 should last until at least 2050. Programs are well under way for a
new SSBN, a new bomber, and the B61-12 guided bomb, whereas programs
have just started for a new ICBM and for the Long-Range Standoff (LRSO) cruise
missile that is planned to replace the AGM-86. Among these programs, the LRSO
is the most controversial and (probably) the one at most risk of cancellation.
Analyses presented here suggest that LRSO is critical to the future of the triad
and should not be terminated or delayed
« Last Edit: October 29, 2017, 09:12:57 pm by marauder2048 »

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2025
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: LRSO (Long Range Standoff) Cruise Missile
« Reply #27 on: November 01, 2017, 06:00:37 pm »
CBO's estimate for LRSO development is $4 billion in 2017 dollars.

LRIP unit cost of $12 million
FRP  unit cost of $9 million assuming a total production run of 1,000 missiles.

As the authors note, this is ACM cost data scaled-up by 30%.

https://www.cbo.gov/publication/53211

The JHUAPL study (from above) gave a $2 - $5 billion development cost and
a $2 - $5 million unit cost for 400 - 1000 missiles




Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8480
Re: LRSO (Long Range Standoff) Cruise Missile
« Reply #28 on: November 04, 2017, 02:33:01 am »
...
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8480
Re: LRSO (Long Range Standoff) Cruise Missile
« Reply #29 on: November 07, 2017, 01:16:39 am »
via hint from marauder2048
https://www.bizjournals.com/washington/news/2017/10/26/northrop-decision-to-drop-out-of-drone-competition.html
Quote
The MQ-25 is, as one Wall Street analyst on Wednesday’s call noted, Northrop’s third “no-bid” this year for a major defense acquisition program. The company decided not to compete for the the Air Force’s T-X training aircraft and also bowed out of the Long Range Standoff Weapon.
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8385
Re: LRSO (Long Range Standoff) Cruise Missile
« Reply #30 on: February 26, 2018, 10:20:01 pm »
From Inside Defense:

Air Force pegs LRSO development at $4.5 billion, dramatically lower than previous estimate

The Air Force has revealed the development cost of the Long Range Standoff Weapon to be $4.5 billion, nearly half the tab for the next-generation nuclear cruise missile the service tallied two years ago, according to service budget documents.
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: 395
Re: LRSO (Long Range Standoff) Cruise Missile
« Reply #31 on: February 27, 2018, 05:49:28 pm »
From Inside Defense:

Air Force pegs LRSO development at $4.5 billion, dramatically lower than previous estimate

The Air Force has revealed the development cost of the Long Range Standoff Weapon to be $4.5 billion, nearly half the tab for the next-generation nuclear cruise missile the service tallied two years ago, according to service budget documents.

It should have been lower all along. They are reinventing the wheel. We already had a "stealth" ALCM that was scrapped - after being deployed - for a vintage ALCM that was developed when Led Zeppelin was touring. It normally costs less to engineer a copy of something then to invent that thing the first time around. It will probably be a carbon copy clone as there are only just so many ways to engineer a turbofan powered missile with folding fins and mates with a rotary launcher.
"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

Online sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 10715
Re: LRSO (Long Range Standoff) Cruise Missile
« Reply #32 on: February 27, 2018, 07:55:22 pm »
It will probably be a carbon copy clone as there are only just so many ways to engineer a turbofan powered missile with folding fins and mates with a rotary launcher.

I can think of at least four very different ways: Tomahawk, AGM-86, JASSM, and AGM-129.  The new missile will likely look like none of them (though a stretched JASSM could probably be had for fairly cheap and soon). 
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline Mark S.

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 65
Re: LRSO (Long Range Standoff) Cruise Missile
« Reply #33 on: February 28, 2018, 07:05:00 am »

Online sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 10715
Re: LRSO (Long Range Standoff) Cruise Missile
« Reply #34 on: March 01, 2018, 04:06:07 am »
This would make the missile different than those mentioned:

http://aviationweek.com/technology/turbine-engine-could-pave-way-supersonic-cruise-missiles

Yeah, we've been seeing that headline for about 30 years now.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline DrRansom

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 488
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: LRSO (Long Range Standoff) Cruise Missile
« Reply #35 on: March 02, 2018, 05:08:37 am »
It is very possible that the drop in price is due to the USAF switching to a stretched JASSM variant.

As for supersonics, the US will have to be content with developing all the technology and watching other countries implement the design.

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1668
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: LRSO (Long Range Standoff) Cruise Missile
« Reply #36 on: March 02, 2018, 05:15:08 am »
I'd rather have supersonic and hypersonic efforts focus on developing conventional, tactical systems first..that probably has far more chance of securing investments..If the LRSO gets expensive it becomes an even riper target for cancellation by future administrations.
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline DrRansom

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 488
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: LRSO (Long Range Standoff) Cruise Missile
« Reply #37 on: March 02, 2018, 05:35:11 am »
I'd rather have supersonic and hypersonic efforts focus on developing conventional, tactical systems first..that probably has far more chance of securing investments..If the LRSO gets expensive it becomes an even riper target for cancellation by future administrations.

In theory yes, but in practice we will see. I was very intrigued by the possible use of the Mach 3 turbojet for a Mach 2 reusable unmanned reconaissance aircraft.

Offline litzj

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 130
  • BLOG : http://jaesan-aero.blogspot.com/
    • http://jaesan-aero.blogspot.com/
Re: LRSO (Long Range Standoff) Cruise Missile
« Reply #38 on: March 03, 2018, 03:52:52 am »
Mach 2 or 3 is not advantage compare to hypersonic ones.
(Easily targeted by IR sensor but not agile like hypersonic)

Two category weapons are needed

- Extremely stealth but slow (not detected by IR/Radar/Multi-spectral sensor)

- Highly fast (easily detected by enemy sensors, but do not give enough response time to enemy)

Offline Colonial-Marine

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 534
  • Fighting the UAV mafia.
Re: LRSO (Long Range Standoff) Cruise Missile
« Reply #39 on: March 05, 2018, 05:41:11 pm »
Mach 2 or 3 is not advantage compare to hypersonic ones.
(Easily targeted by IR sensor but not agile like hypersonic)

Two category weapons are needed

- Extremely stealth but slow (not detected by IR/Radar/Multi-spectral sensor)

- Highly fast (easily detected by enemy sensors, but do not give enough response time to enemy)

Yet when talking about the near future would developing and fielding a supersonic cruise missile or AShM offer a useful stepping-stone to develop and field hypersonic weapons?
"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it exists or not, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedy."

Online sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 10715
Re: LRSO (Long Range Standoff) Cruise Missile
« Reply #40 on: March 05, 2018, 07:54:55 pm »
Mach 2 or 3 is not advantage compare to hypersonic ones.
(Easily targeted by IR sensor but not agile like hypersonic)

Two category weapons are needed

- Extremely stealth but slow (not detected by IR/Radar/Multi-spectral sensor)

- Highly fast (easily detected by enemy sensors, but do not give enough response time to enemy)

Yet when talking about the near future would developing and fielding a supersonic cruise missile or AShM offer a useful stepping-stone to develop and field hypersonic weapons?

Russia, China, India, Japan, and Taiwan all have supersonic AShMs so there must be something there.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2025
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: LRSO (Long Range Standoff) Cruise Missile
« Reply #41 on: March 09, 2018, 01:20:34 pm »
Mach 2 or 3 is not advantage compare to hypersonic ones.
(Easily targeted by IR sensor but not agile like hypersonic)

Two category weapons are needed

- Extremely stealth but slow (not detected by IR/Radar/Multi-spectral sensor)

- Highly fast (easily detected by enemy sensors, but do not give enough response time to enemy)

Or maybe something like JSOW-ER with a supersonic sprint stage; basically an LO Threat-D.

Offline litzj

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 130
  • BLOG : http://jaesan-aero.blogspot.com/
    • http://jaesan-aero.blogspot.com/
Re: LRSO (Long Range Standoff) Cruise Missile
« Reply #42 on: March 10, 2018, 07:40:24 am »
Mach 2 or 3 is not advantage compare to hypersonic ones.
(Easily targeted by IR sensor but not agile like hypersonic)

Two category weapons are needed

- Extremely stealth but slow (not detected by IR/Radar/Multi-spectral sensor)

- Highly fast (easily detected by enemy sensors, but do not give enough response time to enemy)

Or maybe something like JSOW-ER with a supersonic sprint stage; basically an LO Threat-D.

It sounds more reasonable