US Army - Lockheed Martin Long Range Precision Fires (LRPF)

Lc89 said:
Can an MK72 rocket not be put on a PRSM to make it fly further? After updating and improving it, you might try something like this. Obviously it'd have taken larger trucks as transport and launch platforms.
Click to expand...

Probably could. It's a fairly expensive piece of kit. They used the ASROC booster on LRASM, I believe, likely because it's cheaper.
 
TomS said:
Lc89 said:
Can an MK72 rocket not be put on a PRSM to make it fly further? After updating and improving it, you might try something like this. Obviously it'd have taken larger trucks as transport and launch platforms.
Click to expand...

Probably could. It's a fairly expensive piece of kit. They used the ASROC booster on LRASM, I believe, likely because it's cheaper.
Click to expand...

I wonder if it's also because they didn't need that much ISP. For example, they could have used the Tomahawk booster and passed on that as well.
 
Based on this document the MK72 runs around half a million $ For something like the LRASM that would add around 17% to the cost of the missile for VL launch. For PrSM this would add about 50% of the cost of the baseline Army PrSM.
 

Attachments

  • MK72_UnitCost.jpg
    MK72_UnitCost.jpg
    203.9 KB · Views: 31
sferrin said:
TomS said:
Lc89 said:
Can an MK72 rocket not be put on a PRSM to make it fly further? After updating and improving it, you might try something like this. Obviously it'd have taken larger trucks as transport and launch platforms.
Click to expand...

Probably could. It's a fairly expensive piece of kit. They used the ASROC booster on LRASM, I believe, likely because it's cheaper.
Click to expand...

I wonder if it's also because they didn't need that much ISP. For example, they could have used the Tomahawk booster and passed on that as well.
Click to expand...

Could also be a matter of who makes it. Since VL LRASM remains a company initiative, IIRC, the fact that LM makes VL ASROC but not Tomahawk or Standard might have played a role in the booster selection.
 
TomS said:
sferrin said:
TomS said:
Lc89 said:
Can an MK72 rocket not be put on a PRSM to make it fly further? After updating and improving it, you might try something like this. Obviously it'd have taken larger trucks as transport and launch platforms.
Click to expand...

Probably could. It's a fairly expensive piece of kit. They used the ASROC booster on LRASM, I believe, likely because it's cheaper.
Click to expand...

I wonder if it's also because they didn't need that much ISP. For example, they could have used the Tomahawk booster and passed on that as well.
Click to expand...

Could also be a matter of who makes it. Since VL LRASM remains a company initiative, IIRC, the fact that LM makes VL ASROC but not Tomahawk or Standard might have played a role in the booster selection.
Click to expand...
That's probably it right there. Would have made integration easier.
 
That's a damned shame, going to kneecap their ability to compete for the final contract. And even if they win, LM just got a gift-wrapped reason to complain to their congressional allies.
 
Moose said:
That's a damned shame, going to kneecap their ability to compete for the final contract. And even if they win, LM just got a gift-wrapped reason to complain to their congressional allies.
Click to expand...
Why would LM complain about Raytheon exiting the competition?

“Their period of performance ended on the 20th, last Friday, and so they dropped out of the competition because they didn’t meet the requirement for the next phase,” he said. “It has been a competitive program and all competitions end and this one ended in this way.”
 
LM's tests have knocked it out of the park so far and their future testing apparently will include multiple missiles. It seems like a no brainer to go with the LM product and I can't imagine why anyone on any side would contest it.
 
sferrin said:
Moose said:
That's a damned shame, going to kneecap their ability to compete for the final contract. And even if they win, LM just got a gift-wrapped reason to complain to their congressional allies.
Click to expand...
Why would LM complain about Raytheon exiting the competition?

“Their period of performance ended on the 20th, last Friday, and so they dropped out of the competition because they didn’t meet the requirement for the next phase,” he said. “It has been a competitive program and all competitions end and this one ended in this way.”
Click to expand...
Poor wording on my part. I meant that in the now-unlikely event of a Raytheon win, LockMart's got a simple but direct line of attack.
 
Moose said:
sferrin said:
Moose said:
That's a damned shame, going to kneecap their ability to compete for the final contract. And even if they win, LM just got a gift-wrapped reason to complain to their congressional allies.
Click to expand...
Why would LM complain about Raytheon exiting the competition?

“Their period of performance ended on the 20th, last Friday, and so they dropped out of the competition because they didn’t meet the requirement for the next phase,” he said. “It has been a competitive program and all competitions end and this one ended in this way.”
Click to expand...
Poor wording on my part. I meant that in the now-unlikely event of a Raytheon win, LockMart's got a simple but direct line of attack.
Click to expand...

It sounded like Raytheon threw in the towel. How could they possibly win?
 
My understanding was that they'd still be part of the Milestone B review, but upon further reading today it looks like I'm wrong and they're totally out. Ah well.
 
Last edited:
That super-gun is interesting. I'm curious if they will resort to Rocket or Ramjet projectiles or maybe some unusual solutions such as travelling charge.
 
aonestudio said:
Rafferty’s team is developing the Strategic Long-Range Cannon, a supergun using gunpowder to launch guided projectiles over one thousand miles. While a full-up SLRC prototype won’t be test-fired until 2023, two “test assets” are already launching simulated projectiles called slugs.

https://breakingdefense.com/2020/05...aign=Feed:+BreakingDefense+(Breaking+Defense)
Click to expand...
W/O Strategic Long-Range Cannons high cost low density assets like long range hypersonic missiles will not survive and deliver against evolving air defenses.
 
The Army has yet to present a formal acquisition plan for the LRHW 2.0 so we don't really have any insight into how and in what quantity it plans to employ it. OpFires with its large magazine and tactical flexibility is probably a better long term option. Perhaps a US Army and USMC OpFires based solution could be bought in quantity towards the second half of the 2020's.

That said, I'd much rather focus hypersonic acquisition investments towards the AF and Navy programs. The former needs both air-breathing and boost glide, while the latter needs to speed up VLS integration and perhaps look at integrating an AB hypersonic cruise missile on its strike fighter fleet. I would much rather this current upswing in defense budgets be used to bring that to fruition than to advance everything and put really nothing into a sustainable acquisition program going into the other side of the budget cycle. The Army LRHW etc is outside of its LRPF portfolio. PrSM, GMLRS-ER, Next Gen precision artillery rounds and the strategic fires cannon is probably a more important capability IMO. If they can bring all of these into operational service that would be a substantial achievement.
 
Last edited:
The Army has drafted an acquisition strategy calling for at least three additional opportunities for competition on the Precision Strike Missile, giving Raytheon -- which was bumped from the contest in March -- and other interested companies a chance to improve the base missile being developed by Lockheed Martin as a follow-on to the Army Tactical Missile.

https://insidedefense.com/daily-news/army-eyes-three-future-competitions-upgrade-prsm
 
AN/AWW-14(V) said:
The Army has drafted an acquisition strategy calling for at least three additional opportunities for competition on the Precision Strike Missile, giving Raytheon -- which was bumped from the contest in March -- and other interested companies a chance to improve the base missile being developed by Lockheed Martin as a follow-on to the Army Tactical Missile.

https://insidedefense.com/daily-news/army-eyes-three-future-competitions-upgrade-prsm
Click to expand...

This strikes me as just odd. Almost like, "hey Boeing, don't give up. If we decided we don't like the F-35 after 500 units we'll give you another chance to sell that X-32."
 
sferrin said:
AN/AWW-14(V) said:
The Army has drafted an acquisition strategy calling for at least three additional opportunities for competition on the Precision Strike Missile, giving Raytheon -- which was bumped from the contest in March -- and other interested companies a chance to improve the base missile being developed by Lockheed Martin as a follow-on to the Army Tactical Missile.

https://insidedefense.com/daily-news/army-eyes-three-future-competitions-upgrade-prsm
Click to expand...

This strikes me as just odd. Almost like, "hey Boeing, don't give up. If we decided we don't like the F-35 after 500 units we'll give you another chance to sell that X-32."
Click to expand...

Or conversely, "hey Lockheed, don't get complacent just because you've won this round. You have to keep being creative or someone else will come with a better idea and take it away from you."
 
It is not exactly a ringing endorsement of Lockheed Martin, to be sure.
 
Lockheed Martin is integrating technologies into the final product and making that weapon system. I believe they always wanted to spiral this into an open system where propulsion or guidance technologies could be competed in the future instead of it being locked into one OEM for decades. So whether that is competing a future propulsion stack, or seeker concepts etc there will be opportunities to transition capabilities presented by others into the system.

To Lockheed's part they have executed the program on schedule and have demonstrated 3 for 3 in terms of successful firings. Raytheon couldn't even get off the ground. However if someone has something that the program is interested in spiraling in then they want to keep the option open. Not that it would be easy but they will surely compete future capabilities into the system. Whether that results in wholesale transition to a different prime remains to be seen. I highly doubt it. Lockheed has a long track record with ATACMS and has done well on the PrSM. But the plan was always to allow opportunities for innovative proposals to enter into future upgrades so I won't take this as a reflection on Lockheed, Raytheon or whosoever else may be involved.
 
The AF could be expected to have this response. The problem is that aircraft just are not going to be as survivable as they were before. Also w/o a gun mounting aircraft to defeat hardened structures and point defenses, the aircraft delivered munitions will be intercepted by point defense systems.. Artillery is cheap, even super gun rds will be relatively cheap compared to aircraft and missiles. If DEAD is to be accomplished to allow both long range missiles and aircraft survive, then the super gun is the only way. Thank you Deptula for proving my point.

on another issue:
Brutus is fine. but, although probably expensive, the US Army should be looking at.

https://www.defenseworld.net/news/25438#.XwdYeyhKg7Y
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom