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

bobbymike said:
https://www.army.mil/article/239758...LnnbvhLUMeXFt5gOey0NP2GdD6LzcuXZgFBx93Qgdeiz0———————————————————-
Lots of existing SRMs you could put a smart warhead on for a quick OTS solution.
Click to expand...
"The cannon, which is expected to fire rounds out to 1,000 km, or 620 miles, is currently a science and technology investment led by the Armaments Center at Picatinny Arsenal, New Jersey."

When did the 1,000 mile range turn into 1,000 kilometers? Typo or program scaled back?
 
isayyo2 said:
bobbymike said:
https://www.army.mil/article/239758...LnnbvhLUMeXFt5gOey0NP2GdD6LzcuXZgFBx93Qgdeiz0———————————————————-
Lots of existing SRMs you could put a smart warhead on for a quick OTS solution.
Click to expand...
"The cannon, which is expected to fire rounds out to 1,000 km, or 620 miles, is currently a science and technology investment led by the Armaments Center at Picatinny Arsenal, New Jersey."

When did the 1,000 mile range turn into 1,000 kilometers? Typo or program scaled back?
Click to expand...
Or threshold vs. objective.
 
bobbymike said:
https://www.army.mil/article/239758...LnnbvhLUMeXFt5gOey0NP2GdD6LzcuXZgFBx93Qgdeiz0———————————————————-
Lots of existing SRMs you could put a smart warhead on for a quick OTS solution.
Click to expand...
If the Army has to run the SLRC from a mile away w/ telepresent robots, they should . They had better not terminate this prgram of 'medical reasons' . Even hypersonics are expensive, one shot wonders which soon wil "interceptible" if that is word.

The enemies of SLRC are many and manifest and because this is about cash, ever so quiet and clever.
 
aonestudio said:
Weight and mobility challenges have forced the US Army to abandon a government-designed autoloader for its Extended Range Cannon Artillery (ERCA) programme and the service is now looking for help from six tech companies.

“The integration challenge for [it] was too much of a trade with mobility and durability, and some of the results from putting 3,000 miles on a combat vehicle [out at Yuma Proving Ground] weighted up with the centre of gravity issue that we had,”

https://www.janes.com/defence-news/...oloader-plans-heads-back-to-the-drawing-board
:eek:
Click to expand...
Maybe they are trying to fit too much into that turret and hull combination?
 
That makes sense as the next step but I wonder if they would be better off with a somewhat larger vehicle to work with, along the lines of the Crusader or Pzh-2000.
 
I’m not sure what off the shelf solution they could press into service over such an incredibly small timeframe. The only thing that comes to mind are some of the ballistic missile simulators used for ABM.
 
Josh_TN said:
I’m not sure what off the shelf solution they could press into service over such an incredibly small timeframe. The only thing that comes to mind are some of the ballistic missile simulators used for ABM.
Click to expand...

See second post from top of this page. (#282)
 
sferrin said:
Josh_TN said:
I’m not sure what off the shelf solution they could press into service over such an incredibly small timeframe. The only thing that comes to mind are some of the ballistic missile simulators used for ABM.
Click to expand...

See second post from top of this page. (#282)
Click to expand...

Using old components doesn't seem like a very standardized or scalable solution for a major weapons program. I would think at a minimum, presumably it would have to be a rocket motor still in production.
 
GARGEAN said:
Current GMLRS goes up to 75km?
Click to expand...

Yes, range "exceeding 70 km" has long been the advertised capability of GMLRS. Lockheed's website says as much. This is also referenced in the selected acquisition report.
 

Attachments

  • GMLRS_Dec18SAR.jpg
    GMLRS_Dec18SAR.jpg
    309.3 KB · Views: 11
Josh_TN said:
sferrin said:
Josh_TN said:
I’m not sure what off the shelf solution they could press into service over such an incredibly small timeframe. The only thing that comes to mind are some of the ballistic missile simulators used for ABM.
Click to expand...

See second post from top of this page. (#282)
Click to expand...

Using old components doesn't seem like a very standardized or scalable solution for a major weapons program. I would think at a minimum, presumably it would have to be a rocket motor still in production.
Click to expand...
ATACMS is still in production.
 
Josh_TN said:
What other stage would it be mated with?
Click to expand...
Don't know what Zombie is using for a 2nd stage. You could always just use another ATACMS motor for the 2nd stage for a quick and dirty solution.
 
Congress has blessed an Army proposal to accelerate the next round of competition on the Precision Strike Missile, allowing the service to more than double spending immediately on multimode seeker technology for the new ground-launched, long-range munition. The move is mean to help the service speed fielding of the new capability from fiscal year 2027 to 2025. In late August, the Pentagon comptroller asked Congress for permission to shift $9.9 million into the Army's Long Range Precision Fires Advanced Technology.

https://insidedefense.com/daily-new...y-plan-accelerate-prsm-seeker-upgrade-project
The multi-mode seeker was developed from the Land-Based Anti-Ship Missile program that began in 2015 to help the Army target enemy ships with its long-range precision fires capability. However, the Army soon realized the seeker not only had the ability to track the radio signals of moving ships, but also land-based targets such as communications vans and the mobile radars of anti-aircraft defenses.

The capability gives the Army the means to succeed in a difficult anti-access, aerial-denial environment, officials said. The use of multiple sensors also increases the ability to locate targets even without good coordinates.

https://www.army.mil/article/236251/army_begins_testing_advanced_seeker_for_precision_strike_missile
 
Last edited:

Army immediately launching new Mid-Range Capability program; eyeing Tomahawk, SM-6​

The Army is moving to adopt land-based variants of the Navy's strike inventory -- eyeing the Tomahawk cruise missile and Standard Missile-6 -- in order to field by 2023 a prototype Mid-Range Capability battery, filling an "extremely high risk" capability gap by adding a layer to its long-range precision fires portfolio for targets between the ranges of its planned Precision Strike Missile and Long Ranger Hypersonic Weapon
 
I hope they go with a more compact vehicle than the first time around.
 
That seems like a really long range for that booster stack. It must be firmly subsonic by the time it stretches that far.

In any case, I'm hoping DARPA's OPFires program is successful and that it can be developed into the MRC replacement.
 
Josh_TN said:
That seems like a really long range for that booster stack. It must be firmly subsonic by the time it stretches that far.
Click to expand...

It's more usually described as the SM-3 Block II stack (so full-caliber 21-inch), with a hypersonic boost-glide vehicle as the payload in place of the large-diameter kill vehicle in SM-3 Blk IIA.
 
Ah, ok I could see the SM-3 stack travelling a lot further than SM-6 Ia. I forgot that an SM-6 blk1b was in the works that was also 21"; I could see that extra propellant pushing it out to the MRC range (~1000 miles) against a static ground target. I think that would be a much better platform than BGM-109. Though again, hoping it can be replaced by OpFires. I like the direction DARPA is going in with that project; a lot of flexibility and borrowing the TBG/ARRW glider saves a lot of development while producing something a lighter than the LRHW.
 
There was something in the ARRW FY21 budget for DARPA that explored a potential naval application. I wonder how they would integrate a seeker in there but regardless, what OpFires is trying to do is pretty exotic so I don't think either service (Army/Navy) will move full speed towards it until there are successfully demonstrations in next couple of years. An TBG derived glide vehicle mounted on a more mature stack may also be quite useful if such a thing is even possible.
 
I'm doing some research for a project at work - does anyone know what the 21" motor on the SM-3 block IIa is? I'm assuming the booster is still the Mk 72, but what about the second stage? is it an enlarged derivative of the Mk 104?
 
AeroFranz said:
I'm doing some research for a project at work - does anyone know what the 21" motor on the SM-3 block IIa is? I'm assuming the booster is still the Mk 72, but what about the second stage? is it an enlarged derivative of the Mk 104?
Click to expand...

I've never seen a name for it in literature other than "21-inch second-stage rocket motor." It's a co-development with Japan, so my hunch would be it's new, not just an enlargement of an existing motor.

This paper about Pratt-Whitney's approach to a 21-inch motor design is old (1996) but might be of some interest: https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a320272.pdf
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom