Register here

Author Topic: LRSO (Long Range Standoff) Cruise Missile  (Read 9985 times)

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8437
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: 404
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

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 10780
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: 66
Re: LRSO (Long Range Standoff) Cruise Missile
« Reply #33 on: February 28, 2018, 07:05:00 am »

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 10780
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: 493
  • 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: 1681
  • 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: 493
  • 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: 144
  • 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: 547
  • 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."

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 10780
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: 144
  • 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