Register here

Author Topic: LRSO (Long Range Standoff) Cruise Missile  (Read 10184 times)

Offline Airplane

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 412
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: 860
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: 2034
  • "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?

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 10880
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: 2034
  • "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: 860
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: 2034
  • "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: 1497

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2034
  • "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: 412
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: 7779
  • 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: 2034
  • "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: 2034
  • "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: 8535
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: 8535
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