• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

Long Range Precision Fires

jsport

what do you know about surfing Major? you're from-
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
2,425
Reaction score
461
The one shot wonder matchstix missiles are not goin to do it especially as potential adversaries develop more capable DEW defenses. It is going to long range guns like the SLRC.
 

Josh_TN

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 4, 2019
Messages
757
Reaction score
389
SLRC is just a tube launched missile that is intended to be cheaper. It won’t have advantage in speed or rate of fire, assuming it ever is developed.
 

bobbymike

ACCESS: USAP
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
10,726
Reaction score
1,801
SLRC is just a tube launched missile that is intended to be cheaper. It won’t have advantage in speed or rate of fire, assuming it ever is developed.
And there’s the mobility question. A 1000 mile range missile or the SLRC. Weight, setting up, firing, moving? The SLRC will be pushing tech limits there’s never been one before while a 1000 mile range missile here since the V2 more or less.

I’m all for pushing miltech but not at the expense of effective provable near term solutions
 

Josh_TN

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 4, 2019
Messages
757
Reaction score
389
SLRC is described as “relocatable”, which strikes me as road mobile with effort. But with a thousand mile range that wouldn’t be a big hinderance. The main technical challenge in my opinion is the program goal of a guided solid fuel ramjet round with that range for $500,000. That’s a big ask. But it would be fairly revolutionary if it was achieved. I’d think the USN or USMC would be interested in mounting it on a ship if it worked. You could just set it up on the deck of one of the newer mobile expeditionary bases.
 

seruriermarshal

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
May 4, 2008
Messages
1,030
Reaction score
192
SLRC is described as “relocatable”, which strikes me as road mobile with effort. But with a thousand mile range that wouldn’t be a big hinderance. The main technical challenge in my opinion is the program goal of a guided solid fuel ramjet round with that range for $500,000. That’s a big ask. But it would be fairly revolutionary if it was achieved. I’d think the USN or USMC would be interested in mounting it on a ship if it worked. You could just set it up on the deck of one of the newer mobile expeditionary bases.
any nuclear warhead for it ?
 

skyblue

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Sep 20, 2009
Messages
31
Reaction score
9
SLRC is described as “relocatable”, which strikes me as road mobile with effort. But with a thousand mile range that wouldn’t be a big hinderance. The main technical challenge in my opinion is the program goal of a guided solid fuel ramjet round with that range for $500,000. That’s a big ask. But it would be fairly revolutionary if it was achieved. I’d think the USN or USMC would be interested in mounting it on a ship if it worked. You could just set it up on the deck of one of the newer mobile expeditionary bases.
any nuclear warhead for it ?
That would be pointless, there are innumerable better ways to deliver nukes. The raison d'etre for SLRC is to cost effectively transport ordinance to target at extreme range. Nukes are so specialized and relatively few that it wouldn't make sense to economize on the delivery system that way.
 

Firefinder

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Oct 6, 2019
Messages
104
Reaction score
140
SLRC is described as “relocatable”, which strikes me as road mobile with effort. But with a thousand mile range that wouldn’t be a big hinderance. The main technical challenge in my opinion is the program goal of a guided solid fuel ramjet round with that range for $500,000. That’s a big ask. But it would be fairly revolutionary if it was achieved. I’d think the USN or USMC would be interested in mounting it on a ship if it worked. You could just set it up on the deck of one of the newer mobile expeditionary bases.
any nuclear warhead for it ?
That would be pointless, there are innumerable better ways to deliver nukes. The raison d'etre for SLRC is to cost effectively transport ordinance to target at extreme range. Nukes are so specialized and relatively few that it wouldn't make sense to economize on the delivery system that way.
Not to mention illegally by like...

Two different treaties that are still in effect, which the US ACTUALLY SIGNED. Which I can see being a plus, say Hypersconics suffer the same feat as the ICBM, which had plans for conventual non-nuke attacks. But that been dropped and called useless since someone cant tell the different between a Minuteman with a 200kt warhead or a 2000 lb warhead. I can see the Hypersonics getting hit with the same issue. Thanks a those treaties I can see the Army going: Nukes? Are you fucking stupid?! It illegal to add nukes to ARTILLERY! Which means we dont need Presidential approval to move these around.

Which can be extemely handy.

As for the Effort...

The M65 atomic cannon, was a elevan inch monster of a gun that could be set up in 15 and displace in 10 minutes. And the Russians made a 16.5 inch SELF PROPELLED GUN with the 2B1 Oka, both in the mid fifties to sixties timeline. So that is very possible, and easy to do. Hell a Partoit missile system needs an hour or more to set up.

We have a GPS Guidance FUSE, PGK Kit, going for about 15k a pop, so not that not going to be a issue. And Nammo and Raython both saying good things about their 155mm ramjet shells.

All the ingredients are there, we just need to start mixing.

The Biggest issue I see is the start up cost for building the FUCK OFF HUGE barrel to fire these things.
 

jsport

what do you know about surfing Major? you're from-
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
2,425
Reaction score
461
missiles-matchstix
artillery bombardment-guided metric tons
 

Josh_TN

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 4, 2019
Messages
757
Reaction score
389
Any SLRC round filled with ramjet fuel is going to struggle to carry more bang than the matchstick and will have a much lower RoF per launcher (and probably many fewer launchers). What they hope to get from it are long range, relatively high speed, and relatively low cost. If it worked, it could deliver attacks at several times the speed of Tomahawk for a third the price. But warhead will be nothing like the 1000# of BGM-109.

No one has demonstrated a working solid fuel artillery round yet too my knowledge.
 

bobbymike

ACCESS: USAP
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
10,726
Reaction score
1,801
 

Firefinder

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Oct 6, 2019
Messages
104
Reaction score
140
Hell a Partoit missile system needs an hour or more to set up.
That's special for Patriot, not common for systems of this scale.
Not really. The ANTPQ37 isn't that much smaller and I set that thing up faster then the 30 minute standard. Army TOCS needs about as long to emplace, as does the Thaad.

Basically it can be done within a Half hour times easy. You be surprise how fast a massive system can be set up and move by a semi well train crew.
Any SLRC round filled with ramjet fuel is going to struggle to carry more bang than the matchstick and will have a much lower RoF per launcher (and probably many fewer launchers). What they hope to get from it are long range, relatively high speed, and relatively low cost. If it worked, it could deliver attacks at several times the speed of Tomahawk for a third the price. But warhead will be nothing like the 1000# of BGM-109.

No one has demonstrated a working solid fuel artillery round yet too my knowledge.
The Army is planning on 4 cannon per battery. That is two less then the 155mm guns, but is the same as the MLRS batteries, and the new missile ones. As for the warhead it depends on how big the shell is, you can do alot these days with barely 50 pounds of high explosive thanks to modern precision. And considering they are looking at a BIG shell, 11 inchs or so, you can fit a Small Diameter Bomb size warhead in it just fine. While it may not be as big a boom, well not many things can shrug off a 250 pound bunker buster that can punch through nearly 2 meters of concrete.

Also ROF is a LIE.

Sustain Fire Rate
is what you want in artillery. You just want to be able to pound the target into dust more often then not and when you dont, one shot generally does the trick.

While a four Tomahawk launcher trucks can fire off 16 missiles in as many seconds, then need roughly 10 minutes to reload before repeating.

Assuming the SLRC can do 2 per minute basing on the M65 cannon rate of fire, a battery of 4 guns can have 80 shots in the air in the same 10 minute time for roughly the same cost. As long as the ammo holds out, they'll keep firing for hours until the soldiers literally drop, one shell landing on target every 20 secs per gun. And you can add 20 shots for every new gun you add. Even dropping it down to one per minute still gives you 10 shells in the same time a Tomahawk truck can do 4.

There is not much that can defend against that without being a full on bunker and tanking it. And that is why the ARMY want it so hard.
 

Josh_TN

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 4, 2019
Messages
757
Reaction score
389
If the intent of fire is suppressive, fair enough on RoF. But I’d argue any precision fire, and certainly and strategic range fire, is innately destructive in nature, not suppressive, and that the burst rate is more meaningful. You aren’t going to maintain a constant rain of projectiles when they are half a million dollars and each one is a high altitude cruise missile that can be intercepted. PrSM fired from a 3 vehicle MLRS battery can be twelve rounds deep. But they are something like a million a pop and half or less the range. To my mind SLRC makes AD problematic by covering more area and making the projectiles less expensive that any high altitude SAM used to engage them.
 

Firefinder

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Oct 6, 2019
Messages
104
Reaction score
140
To my mind SLRC makes AD problematic by covering more area and making the projectiles less expensive that any high altitude SAM used to engage them.
And that is one of the main roles the Army is look to use the SLRC for.

Suppression of Air Defense.

Why send a Squadron of Wild Weasel types to knock out that SAM site when the Army can do it for a quarter the cost and still able to smack the primary target at the same time?

The other role is for general organic fire support, IE the Air Force is being the Chain Farce and we need support right know and not in two hours when the Air Force Mandated Coffee Break is over...
 

TomS

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
4,610
Reaction score
1,762
But what's the time of flight on SLRC rounds from a thousand miles away? Plus deconfliction time to make sure no one is flying through the airspace those rounds are transiting.

You want time-critical support, that's what in-theater artillery is for. Think ERCA, not SLRC.
 

Josh_TN

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 4, 2019
Messages
757
Reaction score
389
SLRC isn't going to be used for fire support. It has 'strategic' right in the name. It is an intermediate range missile by another name using a novel launch method.

EDIT: assuming it ever exists at all
 

TomS

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
4,610
Reaction score
1,762

Hmm. Their headline says it's for the Precision Fires missile but the text says it's for GMLRS.

Precision Fires is a general term that encompasses pretty much the whole guided weapon inventory. Don't confuse it with Long-Range Precision Fires, which is a specific subset and program.
 

jsport

what do you know about surfing Major? you're from-
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
2,425
Reaction score
461
But what's the time of flight on SLRC rounds from a thousand miles away? Plus deconfliction time to make sure no one is flying through the airspace those rounds are transiting.

You want time-critical support, that's what in-theater artillery is for. Think ERCA, not SLRC.
If the math & simulation isn't political then deconfliction will barely be needed as the deep battle will be over before many aircraft are required. When the deep battle is over there will be no close battle.

Large and expensive missiles are an addiction which grew out of ww2.They will be shot down w/o guns providing SEAD just like jets. Another addiction this forum has a penchant for which grew our of www2.
 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,814
Reaction score
2,041

Hmm. Their headline says it's for the Precision Fires missile but the text says it's for GMLRS.

Precision Fires is a general term that encompasses pretty much the whole guided weapon inventory. Don't confuse it with Long-Range Precision Fires, which is a specific subset and program.
Can't keep up with the marketing.
 

jsport

what do you know about surfing Major? you're from-
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
2,425
Reaction score
461
as stated JROC mtgs are going to get more tense as each is trying to take each other's cornflakes and pee in the other service's cereal bowl.

PS; and the jets and missiles fetish is alive and well. Sure missiles and jets but guns as well.
 

shin_getter

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Jun 1, 2019
Messages
257
Reaction score
211
The USA developing SLRC is like the RN developing submarines (in 1900). Look at the relative surface area and available engineering support for concealment!
 

bobbymike

ACCESS: USAP
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
10,726
Reaction score
1,801
 

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
14,044
Reaction score
3,854
The gremlins are afoot; link is down at the moment. (EDIT2: Post I was referring to was subsequently removed, just in case there is any confusion with the post that is now above this one.)

EDIT: This version of the link should work.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Top