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

seruriermarshal said:
bobbymike said:
https://breakingdefense.com/2021/11...WaF6JAX0m2h-aHyGJfghICLVlDNmMH9jCFNSSkobHj5YY
Click to expand...
Yes , because they need it reach 499km :

a Lockheed Martin executive in October described the test as a max-range test, suggesting 499km was the goal
Click to expand...
Missing the point. They could have just admitted they got telemetry up to impact and said the maximum range was classified (even though, undoubtedly, both China and Russia already know how far it flew). But no. They decide to lie instead. They weren't even trying to hide the fact they were lying. They could have said 467km or 502km. Nope, 499.2 and then they "lost telemetry". Sure.
 
seruriermarshal said:
Can you access the link ? I can't access the article .

Army long-range precision fires to mix artillery and artificial intelligence (AI) for weapons coordination
Nov. 10, 2021
The Precision Strike Missile (PrSM) will provide the Army with a new operational capability at ranges as long as to 310 miles and perhaps beyond.


https://www.militaryaerospace.com/c...llery-artificial-intelligence-ai-coordination
Click to expand...
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/r...op-priority-long-range-precision-fires-195363
 
jsport said:
seruriermarshal said:
Can you access the link ? I can't access the article .

Army long-range precision fires to mix artillery and artificial intelligence (AI) for weapons coordination
Nov. 10, 2021
The Precision Strike Missile (PrSM) will provide the Army with a new operational capability at ranges as long as to 310 miles and perhaps beyond.


https://www.militaryaerospace.com/c...llery-artificial-intelligence-ai-coordination
Click to expand...
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/r...op-priority-long-range-precision-fires-195363
Click to expand...
Thank you !
 
aonestudio said:
https://news.northropgrumman.com/ne...ision-strike-missile-rocket-motor-static-test
Click to expand...
Pics and images attached, included a LM graphic image showing length 156"/13' and 17" diameter, had assumed PrSM was the same dimensions as the ATACMS 13' x 24" diameter so as to fit the same missile containers used on the ATACMS launchers, tracked M270 and wheeled HIMARS.

ATACMS 24" diameter vs PrSM only 17", why difference? or is it that the PrSM graphic image excludes the rear missile wings. Think remember Raytheon who lost out to LM for the PrSM contract claimed their rocket was smaller in diameter which would allow more missiles per launcher, assumed they were using the same 21" rocket motors as the SM-3 IIA / SM-6 IB
 

Attachments

  • PrSM_LM_graphic_156_inches_17_inches.jpg
    PrSM_LM_graphic_156_inches_17_inches.jpg
    89.8 KB · Views: 79
PrSM has a smaller diameter such that it can fit two missiles per pod. So an MLRS can fire two ATACMs or four PrSM.
 
Cordy said:
Think remember Raytheon who lost out to LM for the PrSM contract claimed their rocket was smaller in diameter which would allow more missiles per launcher
Click to expand...

Two per pod was a US Army requirement so LM and Raytheon would have had basically the same physical dimensions as they were working with existing pods, and designing to the same performance specifications.
 

Attachments

  • DeepStrike_RTX.jpeg
    DeepStrike_RTX.jpeg
    126.6 KB · Views: 74
Last edited:
GPS is easy to jam or spoof due to its very weak signal, November 15 Russia with its new tech ASAT missile successfully tested to take an out old Soviet era satellite, the Kremlin boasted it could take out all US 32 GPS satellites

The USAF Red Flag major exercises have jammed all GPS for years and has the US Army during its Project Convergence exercises. R&D ongoing ~2016 for alternative Positioning, Navigation and Timing (PNT) technologies to replace GPS.

So question why do newer missiles being procured bother to fit GPS for targeting as with the Precision Guidance Kit?, presume just the current lack of alternative of new tech, but have to recognize that GPS guided missiles targeting missiles will be likely ineffective against China or Russia.

https://rntfnd.org/2021/11/30/russia-issues-threat-to-gps-satellites-gps-world/
 
Cordy said:
GPS is easy to jam or spoof due to its very weak signal, November 15 Russia with its new tech ASAT missile successfully tested to take an out old Soviet era satellite, the Kremlin boasted it could take out all US 32 GPS satellites

The USAF Red Flag major exercises have jammed all GPS for years and has the US Army during its Project Convergence exercises. R&D ongoing ~2016 for alternative Positioning, Navigation and Timing (PNT) technologies to replace GPS.

So question why do newer missiles being procured bother to fit GPS for targeting as with the Precision Guidance Kit?, presume just the current lack of alternative of new tech, but have to recognize that GPS guided missiles targeting missiles will be likely ineffective against China or Russia.

https://rntfnd.org/2021/11/30/russia-issues-threat-to-gps-satellites-gps-world/
Click to expand...
Be cause it's there, and fairly cheap, and although you can jam it, they're also looking at ways to negate that. Including, of course, aiming at the jammer.
So against anyone that's not a peer opponent, why not use it?

As for ASAT use, yeah, that's nice. And if Russia does that it WILL be in a full no-holds-barred war with the US if it wasn't before.

That's a mighty choise to make.
 
Killing the whole GPS constellation would take a launch tempo that Russia couldn't hope to achieve in their wildest dreams. Even significantly degrading it is beyond any plausible capacity -- GPS has a high degree of redundancy these days. Statements to the contrary are for Russian internal consumption only.
 
Cordy said:
GPS is easy to jam or spoof due to its very weak signal, November 15 Russia with its new tech ASAT missile successfully tested to take an out old Soviet era satellite, the Kremlin boasted it could take out all US 32 GPS satellites

The USAF Red Flag major exercises have jammed all GPS for years and has the US Army during its Project Convergence exercises. R&D ongoing ~2016 for alternative Positioning, Navigation and Timing (PNT) technologies to replace GPS.
Click to expand...
GPS may be improving but the US Army is certainly very interested in an alterative terrestrial PNT network along w individual PNT devices. Dependance on signals from space is always...
 
Cordy said:
GPS is easy to jam or spoof due to its very weak signal, November 15 Russia with its new tech ASAT missile successfully tested to take an out old Soviet era satellite, the Kremlin boasted it could take out all US 32 GPS satellites

The USAF Red Flag major exercises have jammed all GPS for years and has the US Army during its Project Convergence exercises. R&D ongoing ~2016 for alternative Positioning, Navigation and Timing (PNT) technologies to replace GPS.

So question why do newer missiles being procured bother to fit GPS for targeting as with the Precision Guidance Kit?, presume just the current lack of alternative of new tech, but have to recognize that GPS guided missiles targeting missiles will be likely ineffective against China or Russia.

https://rntfnd.org/2021/11/30/russia-issues-threat-to-gps-satellites-gps-world/
Click to expand...

First of all, GPS guided weapons are actually INS/GPS. And every aircraft and ship has an INS system of its own. So while a total loss of GPS would heavily degrade navigation and weapon delivery, it wouldn't preclude it.

Second of all I'm not aware of any Russian statements to the effect they could engage the entire GPS constellation, but physically it would be demanding and require a lot of time due to orbital mechanics. In fact no one has a demonstrated capability to engage satellites at that altitude, let alone do it 32 times in short order. Those satellites are above 10,000 miles; the energy required to engage them is an ICBM level of energy in terms of altitude and throw weight.

Finally, engaging thirty US satellites is likely to provoke a US attack against infrastructure of similar value, be it in orbit or on the ground. At any given moment there are probably 150+ cruise missiles within range of China or Russia.
 
A least the old GPS signal could be jammed by toaster if close enough. The Russian Army planned to put jammers on every vehicle form 2.5t truck on up. One doesnt need to take out the spacecraft when you can saturate your vehicle inventory w jammers.

advanced antennas, side lobe null, better signal etc. do enhance GPS guided wpns though.
 
The Army has a fairly well funded A-PNT program that is looking to both secure the current GPS weapons via updates, and develop and field new capabilities. The services are at this point preparing to fight to protect GPS and their precision strike capability in general. This problem has existed for decades so suffice to say they have the capability to fight that fight as well. Most of that space capability though is probably highly classified.
 
jsport said:
A least the old GPS signal could be jammed by toaster if close enough. The Russian Army planned to put jammers on every vehicle form 2.5t truck on up. One doesnt need to take out the spacecraft when you can saturate your vehicle inventory w jammers.

advanced antennas, side lobe null, better signal etc. do enhance GPS guided wpns though.
Click to expand...
Of course jamming is double edge sword.

Ok you stop the 155mm shell from landing 30 meters away.

Instead you basically lite up a HERE I AM SHOT ME sign that the newer Home on Jamming program will take particular interest in that the newer designs and models of existing weapons have. Not to mention even the anemic ELINT of the Army will be able to tell you exactly where you are, which will likely end in a shotgun blast of MLRS in that direction.

Which can be handy if they dismount the jammers and put them over there.
 
Firefinder said:
jsport said:
A least the old GPS signal could be jammed by toaster if close enough. The Russian Army planned to put jammers on every vehicle form 2.5t truck on up. One doesnt need to take out the spacecraft when you can saturate your vehicle inventory w jammers.

advanced antennas, side lobe null, better signal etc. do enhance GPS guided wpns though.
Click to expand...
Of course jamming is double edge sword.

Ok you stop the 155mm shell from landing 30 meters away.

Instead you basically lite up a HERE I AM SHOT ME sign that the newer Home on Jamming program will take particular interest in that the newer designs and models of existing weapons have. Not to mention even the anemic ELINT of the Army will be able to tell you exactly where you are, which will likely end in a shotgun blast of MLRS in that direction.

Which can be handy if they dismount the jammers and put them over there.
Click to expand...

Of note, the USAF not long ago bragged about killing a GPS jammer in Syria, I think, using a JDAM. Jamming ain't all that.
 
Last edited:
Land based GPS jammers would be priority targets for the HOJ equipped JDAM, and SDB I's. The Army is also developing projectiles that are both GPS Jam resistant, and GPS independent so there are multiple layers of how they intend on dealing with this particular problem.
 

Attachments

  • Slide2.jpg
    Slide2.jpg
    143.3 KB · Views: 43
  • Slide3.jpg
    Slide3.jpg
    142.1 KB · Views: 43
  • Slide6.jpg
    Slide6.jpg
    102.3 KB · Views: 40
Firefinder said:
jsport said:
A least the old GPS signal could be jammed by toaster if close enough. The Russian Army planned to put jammers on every vehicle form 2.5t truck on up. One doesnt need to take out the spacecraft when you can saturate your vehicle inventory w jammers.

advanced antennas, side lobe null, better signal etc. do enhance GPS guided wpns though.
Click to expand...
Of course jamming is double edge sword.

Ok you stop the 155mm shell from landing 30 meters away.

Instead you basically lite up a HERE I AM SHOT ME sign that the newer Home on Jamming program will take particular interest in that the newer designs and models of existing weapons have. Not to mention even the anemic ELINT of the Army will be able to tell you exactly where you are, which will likely end in a shotgun blast of MLRS in that direction.

Which can be handy if they dismount the jammers and put them over there.
Click to expand...
The question being, one only has to jam in one's immediate vicinity so ELINT geo from any distance may be a problem. Blanket jammers are a home on jam target but current Russian Army doctrine seems unafraid of saturation jamming even if it frags their signals and w/ many jammers. Jammers will likely be protected by Low level tactical IADS which Eastern Armies have plenty of.

Eastern Armies can afford large disposable jammers to induce shots from US assets which reveals those assets.
 
bring_it_on said:
The Army has a fairly well funded A-PNT program that is looking to both secure the current GPS weapons via updates, and develop and field new capabilities. The services are at this point preparing to fight to protect GPS and their precision strike capability in general. This problem has existed for decades so suffice to say they have the capability to fight that fight as well. Most of that space capability though is probably highly classified.
Click to expand...
https://asc.army.mil/web/portfolio-item/a-pnt-dismounted/Thank you for clarification of then "A". Being often w/o GPS is a signifcant issue for Army. Navigating in urban and under foilage is the dismount's operational imperative.
 
Willie Nelson is working hard to get the Army the capability that it needs.
 
jsport said:
The question being, one only has to jam in one's immediate vicinity so ELINT geo from any distance may be a problem
Click to expand...
Eyeah no.

Emissions control is thing for a reason.

The radio waves will travel well several drozen kilometers with hundreds not being unheard if unless actively block by something. Like a mountain.

And this was know during WW1 and detection gear just got more sensitive as time went on.

Thats before it got put on planes.

For finding modern units, its often the lower power comm gear giving it away.

Any jamming powerful enough to screw up GPS signals will be detected a long way away. And from there you just need simple triangulation with two or more sensors, which the US Military have alot off.


jsport said:
Jammers will likely be protected by Low level tactical IADS which Eastern Armies have plenty of.

Eastern Armies can afford large disposable jammers to induce shots from US assets which reveals those assets
Click to expand...
Thing is that a two way street.

First part is that Eastern Armies are on the wrong end of the old ABM debate.

Using a 1 million dollar missile to take out, at max, a 250k MLRS or Excal round is a bad bargain. And guns are way too easy to become over saturated by mass fires of $25k PGK shells.

As for for inducing shots same can be said of Eastern Armies assets. As soon as they shot at an US Army asset another will detect and shot at it. Or the Air Force bombs it with the active homing with home on jam opition GBU53 from 50 kilometers out.

Basically any modern wae campaign going to be a game of wack a mole with explosives.
 
Firefinder said:
jsport said:
The question being, one only has to jam in one's immediate vicinity so ELINT geo from any distance may be a problem
Click to expand...
Eyeah no.

Emissions control is thing for a reason.

The radio waves will travel well several drozen kilometers with hundreds not being unheard if unless actively block by something. Like a mountain.

And this was know during WW1 and detection gear just got more sensitive as time went on.

Thats before it got put on planes.

For finding modern units, its often the lower power comm gear giving it away.

Any jamming powerful enough to screw up GPS signals will be detected a long way away. And from there you just need simple triangulation with two or more sensors, which the US Military have alot off.
Click to expand...
The literature says GPS can be jammed w/ as low as 27db or .5watts. Google says Generally, 0.5 watt (o. 5W) channels cover less than a half mile.
As stated, an engineer he saw a toaster jam a GPS signal.

Firefinder said:
jsport said:
Jammers will likely be protected by Low level tactical IADS which Eastern Armies have plenty of.

Eastern Armies can afford large disposable jammers to induce shots from US assets which reveals those assets
Click to expand...
Using a 1 million dollar missile to take out, at max, a 250k MLRS or Excal round is a bad bargain. And guns are way too easy to become over saturated by mass fires of $25k PGK shells.

As for for inducing shots same can be said of Eastern Armies assets. As soon as they shot at an US Army asset another will detect and shot at it. Or the Air Force bombs it with the active homing with home on jam opition GBU53 from 50 kilometers out.
Click to expand...
A large conflict will have limited Excal or bombs as large a GBU-53 therefore it is a who will make the best use of limited precision for max effect.
 
jsport said:
Firefinder said:
jsport said:
The question being, one only has to jam in one's immediate vicinity so ELINT geo from any distance may be a problem
Click to expand...
Eyeah no.

Emissions control is thing for a reason.

The radio waves will travel well several drozen kilometers with hundreds not being unheard if unless actively block by something. Like a mountain.

And this was know during WW1 and detection gear just got more sensitive as time went on.

Thats before it got put on planes.

For finding modern units, its often the lower power comm gear giving it away.

Any jamming powerful enough to screw up GPS signals will be detected a long way away. And from there you just need simple triangulation with two or more sensors, which the US Military have alot off.
Click to expand...
The literature says GPS can be jammed w/ as low as 27db or .5watts. Google says Generally, 0.5 watt (o. 5W) channels cover less than a half mile.
As stated, an engineer he saw a toaster jam a GPS signal.

Firefinder said:
jsport said:
Jammers will likely be protected by Low level tactical IADS which Eastern Armies have plenty of.

Eastern Armies can afford large disposable jammers to induce shots from US assets which reveals those assets
Click to expand...
Using a 1 million dollar missile to take out, at max, a 250k MLRS or Excal round is a bad bargain. And guns are way too easy to become over saturated by mass fires of $25k PGK shells.

As for for inducing shots same can be said of Eastern Armies assets. As soon as they shot at an US Army asset another will detect and shot at it. Or the Air Force bombs it with the active homing with home on jam opition GBU53 from 50 kilometers out.
Click to expand...
A large conflict will have limited Excal or bombs as large a GBU-53 therefore it is a who will make the best use of limited precision for max effect.
Click to expand...
Considering we actaully have a fairly stockpile of Excal rounds and the GBU53 is a 250 pound gliding bomb, both of which are design to be spam built.

Which they are as seen by the bought amounts listed in this thread.

With the Army also ordering large batchs of PGKs on the regular.

The US can afford to be...

Wasteful of its precision guided munitions.
 
In the larger scheme of things, building huge stockpiles of PGM's is not that expensive anymore relative to some of the other investments we make. You can go back to buying 7k-8K SDB-I's a year and it will still cost the equivalent of something like 2-3 F-35's a year. Doubling, or even tripling the objective GBU-53 inventory isn't going to create that large of a dent in the AF's procurement accounts either. Likewise, adding another 15-20 K M982s say over 6-8 years is going to cost roughly $300-350 MM procurement spend a year. That's a rounding error for Congress. Between these, you have a fairly robust sized inventory that can all be used in combination with other systems to take out the threats and spectrum denial capability and then open up the use of cheaper less resistant to jamming PG options. That said, I believe the PGK-S2M also introduces M-code on the PGK kits so those too may already be available to buy.
 
It is very easy to actually look up the program and inventory costs for these PGMs. Instead of talking non specifics, how about pick 2-3 weapons, and get us what it would cost to say double their inventory over 6-8 years? Let's see if that is going to break a bank across 2 AF (SDB-1, and SDB-2) and a couple of US Army (let's pick excal and PGK) inventories.

We actually have historic information. The AF has in prior years purchased > 7,000 SDB's a year. It can very easily go back to those levels if it wanted. The difference from current procurement rates to that isn't very much in terms of the overall AF procurement budget. The argument that even larger than current stockpiles are unaffordable does not really stand up to scrutiny. Feel free to expand that to more expensive weapons. Army expects to pay 1 Million per PrSm on average. Planned inventory is 3900 missiles. That's a 4-5 Billion 10-15 year acquisition program. A 3x increase in it gets them to about a billion a year in procurement. Increasing PGM stockpiles is actually way more affordable than fielding, operating, or recapitalizing platforms so if a decision is made to adjust the stockpile up compared to where they think they need to be to be comfortable, that can very easily be done in 1/2 or even less the time it takes to field a platform these days.
 
bring_it_on said:
It is very easy to actually look up the program and inventory costs for these PGMs. Instead of talking non specifics, how about pick 2-3 weapons, and get us what it would cost to say double their inventory over 6-8 years? Let's see if that is going to break a bank across 2 AF (SDB-1, and SDB-2) and a couple of US Army (let's pick excal and PGK) inventories.

We actually have historic information. The AF has in prior years purchased > 7,000 SDB's a year. It can very easily go back to those levels if it wanted. The difference from current procurement rates to that isn't very much in terms of the overall AF procurement budget. The argument that even larger than current stockpiles are unaffordable does not really stand up to scrutiny.
Click to expand...
GPS guidance is cheap but increasing stand-off ie often converting to propelled system is not. Keeping personal out of harms way even ground forces is not going down in price but up. Defense budgets are already truncated and the US deterent drastically reduced as pointed out by RUSI analyst interviewed on Russian Mil Strategy for Mitchel Instit. (Army Modernization Thread) A Korean conflict would rapidly deplete as Iraq Afghan did and then no readiness for a MRC.
bring_it_on said:
Feel free to expand that to more expensive weapons. Army expects to pay 1 Million per PrSm on average. Planned inventory is 3900 missiles. That's a 4-5 Billion 10-15 year acquisition program.
Click to expand...
In an MRC, 3900 msles can be expended quickly, and mill a rd is not a survivable Army force structure design. The DEVCOm Cdr has stated Joint Force/Army will be "overwhelmed" by tgts. Folks have known the PAC ranges and the over 10k tgts and growing for 10yrs. A 2 MRC is out of the question and overall def spending is down..
bring_it_on said:
A 3x increase in it gets them to about a billion a year in procurement. Increasing PGM stockpiles is actually way more affordable than fielding, operating, or recapitalizing platforms so if a decision is made to adjust the stockpile up compared to where they think they need to be to be comfortable, that can very easily be done in 1/2 or even less the time it takes to field a platform these days.
Click to expand...
The arguement for stealth has always been getting closer before detection and wpns release, thus the platform's stealth matters. Converting every munition to cruise missile because all of your old platforms is expensive.
 
Selective cherry picking as usual as if the PrSM inventory is the only PGM inventory with the services. Not once did I mention that we buy cruise missiles at the expense of X Y or Z. Let's see some math of what it would take to triple the inventory of select PGMs (land, and air launched) over the next decade and then we can discuss whether it is unaffordable as you claim.

Munition cost and ROI depends on the target, its direct and opportunity cost to the opponent and the cost of denying that to the enemy by another means. Again, let's see some cost and some actual analysis in terms of what it would cost to dramatically increase select weapon inventories just like A) we've done in the past, and B ) are doing with some systems even presently.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom