They might consider it if they get serious about payloads as they grow into anti ship roles. PrSM is basically a 500 km ranged GMLRS. An ATACMS diameter, longer PrSM (using full length of the CAML Heavy launcher) might be a good idea if it can sling a 500 lb class anti-ship warhead.
The point of a lightweight warhead on a missile like PrSM is to get a firepower kill against radars or VLS. You can do that with very small warheads. The smaller warhead also allows the PrSM to double salvo size, which could more than double the chance of actually getting a hit. Unless you are counting on progressive flooding or fire, actually sinking a modern surface combatant is going to take multiple 2,000 lbs bombs.
That was when the only launchers you had were HIMARS and M270 with very specific/tight pod length and diameter requirements. With CAML and CAML H, not to mention the current MRC you no longer have that restriction. The standard CAML should be able to accomodate greater length, and already doubles the pod count, while the palletized CAML H should be able to absorb significantly larger payloads.
Personally I'd love to keep the ATACMS line going for an extended period.
"“AHSS is an entirely new missile,” a spokesperson for the Army’s Combat Capabilities Development Command (DEVCOM) tells Aviation Week.
12 GMLRS not PrSM I think it says.
They'd need to either go to 300mm rockets or VFDR for that though I suspect.
Yeah a modern propulsion solution around the 270-300 mm class should get them those ranges.
And for less than the price of a Dark Eagle.
As well as less range, speed and payload.
Well yeah, but you don't want to have to use a Dark Eagle every time you want something 1500km away hit quickly. TBH though I'm sure they want Dark Eagle to be cheaper anyway.
I think the AHSS will be an ATACMS-sized missile if it is to fit a manned-GMLRS launcher and do 1000+km. But it will still have a fairly limited warhead size (probably same as PrSM), unless they go with a VFDR design, or some kind of multi-pulse engine, and/or an MET-like trajectory, going exo-atmospheric for a range increase and maybe using a separate MaRV for re-entry. Then they could maybe manage 500-650lb of warhead.
Just make a bigger version of GMLRS and resist the urge to add bells and whistles. Maybe make it 2-stage.
Don't think you need a two-stage booster, a single stage into an exo-atmospheric MET trajectory followed by an RV with some manoeuvring ability would make for a big increase in range. At the moment PrSM is making it to 650km inside the atmosphere, massive improvements in range to be had by going exo-atmospheric on the ascent.
Remember, SDB1 has a 100lb warhead. And it was used on a whole lot of relatively soft and low-mobility targets before SDB2 happened.
That's a pretty big booster to exceed 100km altitude.
The existing ATACMS reaches 50km on a semi-ballistic trajectory, meaning it could go higher. PrSM does much the same but with a 650km range and 457mm diameter. MET apogee for 650km is 150km, meaning that getting to 150km would actually be easier than what it does and MET range would be >650km. A modern 610mm (81% c/s area increase) missile should be able to get much higher. MET apogee for 1000km is 250km.
Right. But you're talking about mostly going up first, not going out downrange.
See above. PrSM is making 650km on a non-MET trajectory using a 457mm booster. The MET trajectory is the easiest remember.
You're not talking about MET flight. Not a more or less parabolic flight path.
Err... I am though. If a missile (PrSM 457mm) is reaching 650km in atmosphere by not following an MET path (which for that range is a 150km apogee), then clearly it can go further with an MET trajectory, hence the definition of MET.
Err... no. Was talking about MET, the rest you seem to have introduced from nowhere.
I remember it being mentioned in some article.
Ignore that garbage. Ask/seek what's been demonstrated and where the program currently thinks it is. The last I heard from the LRPF head at the time (Rafferty) was that the Army estimates it around 550 km. I haven't seen a 100 km upward revision since. Threshold and objective range metrics apply to a program not the weapon system in production. There you have current estimates for the range and hard demonstrated performance which the program officially lists as '>500km'
