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

Bhurki said:
Probably a ramjet, considering PrSM is still used as a rapid response weapon.
Click to expand...
That would make more sense - so "combined cycle" in that there would be a rocket booster stage followed up by solid fuel ramjet. Though doubling the range with a ramjet still seems...improbable. That's the only reason I considered a turbojet. I believe Raytheon was working on a PDE for PrSM but are those theoretically efficient enough to double range?
 
As I recall sometime in the early eighties,didn't Lockheed Martin propose using the,first stage of a trident carrying cluster munitions as a counter airfield weapon?
 
sferrin said:
GK Dundas said:
As I recall sometime in the early eighties,didn't Lockheed Martin propose using the,first stage of a trident carrying cluster munitions as a counter airfield weapon?
Click to expand...
Wrong thread.
Click to expand...
Sorry incomplete thought process courtesy of a busier than usual 12 hour work shift. As I recall Lockheed called the system AXE and used the first stage of Trident and the guidance system from a Lance I I..
Allowing for fairly precise targeting..
Would that make it acceptable for this thread?
 
bring_it_on said:
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.
Click to expand...
Assuming those are to scale, the PrSM is actually longer than the ATACMs. 5.8m for PAC-2, so about 4.6-4.7m for PrSM.
 
By that definition an SA-6 is "combined cycle", but ok sure. Presumably this is a solid fuel ramjet like meteor? I'm surprised they already tested one; I didn't think any US manufacturers had any experience in that technology. Also had no idea they were already to the point of testing the terminal seeker in a round. Does this mean they will skip a step? I previously had thought the next spiral of PrSM was to be terminal seeking and only after that range extention.
 
sferrin said:
TomS said:
Presumably some form of solid fuel integrated rocket ramjet configuration would qualify as "combined cycle":
Click to expand...

Never heard that before.
Click to expand...

Transitions from non-airbreathing rocket to airbreathing ramjet. So, if you squint a bit....

Here's one example of that usage on DTIC, form the 1980s. The full report isn't there, but the title is "Combined Cycle Ramjet Engine" and the abstract reads "The metallic wall of the combustion chamber of a combined rocket-ramjet engine is lined with solid ramjet fuel overlaid with rocket fuel. After the consumption of the rocket fuel in the boost portion of the flight the solid ramjet fuel burns and ablates protecting the metallic combustion chamber wall from high temperatures during the cruise phase of the missile flight." Some someone in DoD thought that this is a reasonable usage once upon a time.

Yeah, it's little out of step with how we would usually use combined cycle today but not absurd. Either that, or there's yet another propulsion option they haven't disclosed.
 
TomS said:
sferrin said:
TomS said:
Presumably some form of solid fuel integrated rocket ramjet configuration would qualify as "combined cycle":
Click to expand...

Never heard that before.
Click to expand...

Transitions from non-airbreathing rocket to airbreathing ramjet. So, if you squint a bit....

Here's one example of that usage on DTIC, form the 1980s. The full report isn't there, but the title is "Combined Cycle Ramjet Engine" and the abstract reads "The metallic wall of the combustion chamber of a combined rocket-ramjet engine is lined with solid ramjet fuel overlaid with rocket fuel. After the consumption of the rocket fuel in the boost portion of the flight the solid ramjet fuel burns and ablates protecting the metallic combustion chamber wall from high temperatures during the cruise phase of the missile flight." Some someone in DoD thought that this is a reasonable usage once upon a time.

Yeah, it's little out of step with how we would usually use combined cycle today but not absurd. Either that, or there's yet another propulsion option they haven't disclosed.
Click to expand...
That almost sounds more like an air-breathing hybrid rocket. :)
 
Josh_TN said:
By that definition an SA-6 is "combined cycle", but ok sure. Presumably this is a solid fuel ramjet like meteor? I'm surprised they already tested one; I didn't think any US manufacturers had any experience in that technology. Also had no idea they were already to the point of testing the terminal seeker in a round. Does this mean they will skip a step? I previously had thought the next spiral of PrSM was to be terminal seeking and only after that range extention.
Click to expand...

I think these are two independent tests feeding into separate increments, so we are probably still looking at seeker first, then ER version later.
 
Josh_TN said:
By that definition an SA-6 is "combined cycle", but ok sure. Presumably this is a solid fuel ramjet like meteor? I'm surprised they already tested one; I didn't think any US manufacturers had any experience in that technology.
Click to expand...
Wut?


www.af.mil

Air-to-ground missile launched from drone

For the first time, an air-to-ground missile was launched from a full-scale aerial target drone, or FSAT. The test was performed Jan. 9 by Airmen here with Detachment 1 of the 82nd Aerial Targets
www.af.mil

 
Bhurki said:
Probably a ramjet, considering PrSM is still used as a rapid response weapon.
Click to expand...
Feels nice to be right...

Wouldn't the dimensions change and go over deployable footprint from existing platforms if such dual propulsion is implemented?
 
Bhurki said:
Bhurki said:
Probably a ramjet, considering PrSM is still used as a rapid response weapon.
Click to expand...
Feels nice to be right...

Wouldn't the dimensions change and go over deployable footprint from existing platforms if such dual propulsion is implemented?
Click to expand...

Clearly not, or they wouldn't be doing it.

You could do it like the Nammo Ramjet SAM concept that has circulated:

1652303914177.png

Now, there may be a real question of how much of the old missile is left with the new propulsion system, since you have to slim down the warhead to fit inside the reduced diameter forward.

Or possibly you can fit inlets in at the "corners" of the box around the original diameter.
 
TomS said:
...from a 155mm gun. Impressive, though I can't imagine it will ever be the standard round.
Click to expand...
Likely become like the Excaliber Shell.

Standard Specialty round, ESPECIALLY since the Army has...

LONG LONG Running fears of having its arty out ranged.
 
Hopefully it pans out, but for more day to day use the Army is adopting a new base bleed and RAP shell. These are also going to be incorporated into the ERCA with the new "super charge", and I think specifically have more deformable drive bands to reduce barrel wear as part of that goal. The RAP should be good for almost 70km from the 59 cal barrel and big charge. Not super long ranged but a lot cheaper and very accurate with a PGK fuse.
 
Seems like curious goal/target set. I can't imagine hypersonics ever being cheap enough that use against individual moving vehicles is cost effective. Maybe something was lost in the translation?
 
It's only curious when framed as why use a million dollar munition to take out a few tens of thousand dollar vehicle when what's inside that vehicle is not considered. Now if the vehicle is a TEL with a nuke pointed at you, or a staff car with a particularly important leader/general then the end effect may outweigh the cost differential...
 
I didn't realize SLRC hadn't been killed off yet. It always struck me as having overly ambitious goals in terms of cost and range.
 
I want to know what technology they even planned to use to achieve it. Portable fusion-reactor-powered rail gun?
 
They never said, but I thought it was probably going to be a very high pressure, high caliber gun with solid fuel ramjet ammo. I still don't see how you get a thousand miles out of that, at least not for half a million per round which was the stated goal.
 
Josh_TN said:
They never said, but I thought it was probably going to be a very high pressure, high caliber gun with solid fuel ramjet ammo. I still don't see how you get a thousand miles out of that, at least not for half a million per round which was the stated goal.
Click to expand...
I thought they would probably use a sub-calibre projectile with rocket or CWDE engine, but optimistically even a quarter of that range would have been barely believable. Are they still working on the rail gun?
 
On the note of ultra long range cannons, what about a scaled submerged light gas gun?

Quicklaunch - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
spacegun.jpg
Would this concept have any military utility? If so, what scale, where should it be placed and what kind of mobility should one want out of this?
 
Josh_TN said:
I didn't realize SLRC hadn't been killed off yet. It always struck me as having overly ambitious goals in terms of cost and range.
Click to expand...

For a service that hardly fields any APS equipped MBT's, a wheeled self-propelled howitzer, or zilch in terms of SHORAD capability in the active force (besides the two Iron Dome batteries) it made zero sense (nor does buying a dozen LRHWs a year for that matter). I'd also kill one of the FVL programs to buy all the rest of the stuff that is lacking but probably not possible with the current Chief.
 
Anyone know the diameter of PrSM or warhead size yet? Ah, answered by own question, or part of it.

1653149731003.png
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom