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

Long Range Precision Fires

Lc89

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Aug 10, 2019
Messages
91
Reaction score
29
Can an MK72 rocket not be put on a PRSM to make it fly further? After updating and improving it, you might try something like this. Obviously it'd have taken larger trucks as transport and launch platforms.
 

TomS

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
3,623
Reaction score
509
Can an MK72 rocket not be put on a PRSM to make it fly further? After updating and improving it, you might try something like this. Obviously it'd have taken larger trucks as transport and launch platforms.
Probably could. It's a fairly expensive piece of kit. They used the ASROC booster on LRASM, I believe, likely because it's cheaper.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
12,885
Reaction score
959
Can an MK72 rocket not be put on a PRSM to make it fly further? After updating and improving it, you might try something like this. Obviously it'd have taken larger trucks as transport and launch platforms.
Probably could. It's a fairly expensive piece of kit. They used the ASROC booster on LRASM, I believe, likely because it's cheaper.
I wonder if it's also because they didn't need that much ISP. For example, they could have used the Tomahawk booster and passed on that as well.
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
2,108
Reaction score
135
Based on this document the MK72 runs around half a million $ For something like the LRASM that would add around 17% to the cost of the missile for VL launch. For PrSM this would add about 50% of the cost of the baseline Army PrSM.
 

Attachments

TomS

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
3,623
Reaction score
509
Can an MK72 rocket not be put on a PRSM to make it fly further? After updating and improving it, you might try something like this. Obviously it'd have taken larger trucks as transport and launch platforms.
Probably could. It's a fairly expensive piece of kit. They used the ASROC booster on LRASM, I believe, likely because it's cheaper.
I wonder if it's also because they didn't need that much ISP. For example, they could have used the Tomahawk booster and passed on that as well.
Could also be a matter of who makes it. Since VL LRASM remains a company initiative, IIRC, the fact that LM makes VL ASROC but not Tomahawk or Standard might have played a role in the booster selection.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
12,885
Reaction score
959
Can an MK72 rocket not be put on a PRSM to make it fly further? After updating and improving it, you might try something like this. Obviously it'd have taken larger trucks as transport and launch platforms.
Probably could. It's a fairly expensive piece of kit. They used the ASROC booster on LRASM, I believe, likely because it's cheaper.
I wonder if it's also because they didn't need that much ISP. For example, they could have used the Tomahawk booster and passed on that as well.
Could also be a matter of who makes it. Since VL LRASM remains a company initiative, IIRC, the fact that LM makes VL ASROC but not Tomahawk or Standard might have played a role in the booster selection.
That's probably it right there. Would have made integration easier.
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
9,710
Reaction score
753
The Precision Strike Missile’s rocket booster is so powerful that short-range shots actually put more stress on the weapon than letting it loose to fly its full distance, Lockheed told us

 

Moose

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2010
Messages
1,189
Reaction score
161
That's a damned shame, going to kneecap their ability to compete for the final contract. And even if they win, LM just got a gift-wrapped reason to complain to their congressional allies.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
12,885
Reaction score
959
That's a damned shame, going to kneecap their ability to compete for the final contract. And even if they win, LM just got a gift-wrapped reason to complain to their congressional allies.
Why would LM complain about Raytheon exiting the competition?

“Their period of performance ended on the 20th, last Friday, and so they dropped out of the competition because they didn’t meet the requirement for the next phase,” he said. “It has been a competitive program and all competitions end and this one ended in this way.”
 

Josh_TN

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Sep 4, 2019
Messages
178
Reaction score
72
LM's tests have knocked it out of the park so far and their future testing apparently will include multiple missiles. It seems like a no brainer to go with the LM product and I can't imagine why anyone on any side would contest it.
 

Moose

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2010
Messages
1,189
Reaction score
161
That's a damned shame, going to kneecap their ability to compete for the final contract. And even if they win, LM just got a gift-wrapped reason to complain to their congressional allies.
Why would LM complain about Raytheon exiting the competition?

“Their period of performance ended on the 20th, last Friday, and so they dropped out of the competition because they didn’t meet the requirement for the next phase,” he said. “It has been a competitive program and all competitions end and this one ended in this way.”
Poor wording on my part. I meant that in the now-unlikely event of a Raytheon win, LockMart's got a simple but direct line of attack.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
12,885
Reaction score
959
That's a damned shame, going to kneecap their ability to compete for the final contract. And even if they win, LM just got a gift-wrapped reason to complain to their congressional allies.
Why would LM complain about Raytheon exiting the competition?

“Their period of performance ended on the 20th, last Friday, and so they dropped out of the competition because they didn’t meet the requirement for the next phase,” he said. “It has been a competitive program and all competitions end and this one ended in this way.”
Poor wording on my part. I meant that in the now-unlikely event of a Raytheon win, LockMart's got a simple but direct line of attack.
It sounded like Raytheon threw in the towel. How could they possibly win?
 

Moose

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2010
Messages
1,189
Reaction score
161
My understanding was that they'd still be part of the Milestone B review, but upon further reading today it looks like I'm wrong and they're totally out. Ah well.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
12,885
Reaction score
959


"And the service plans to extend the range of the PrSM missile so there are opportunities for competition there “and we would welcome Raytheon as an important competitor,” Rafferty said, adding Raytheon’s design features a compelling propulsion system, which fundamentally differs from Lockheed’s design and could be considered down the road. "

Hmmmm.

DF-TECH-Detonate-1_AerojetRocketdyne.jpg
 
Last edited:

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
2,108
Reaction score
135
Brig. Gen Rafferty has in the past mentioned a passive RF/ Anti Radiation seeker. This article mentions a multi-mode seeker. The Army has in the past considered a JAGM seeker on an ATACMS. I wonder what the target set is for a moving target PrSM and what seeker options are already mature for this weapon. At this rate they could probably spiral the seeker in around 2025.
 

Mark S.

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Feb 5, 2011
Messages
119
Reaction score
22
Think they mentioned ships as part of the target set.
 

jsport

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
1,662
Reaction score
108
"Theater Artillery Command and Corp Artillery Element" whoa . that is a new Army if it actually occurs. This will require persistent intent, big and persistent cash and big guns..where from in the resource constrained budget world?
 

aonestudio

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Mar 11, 2018
Messages
60
Reaction score
76
Rafferty’s team is developing the Strategic Long-Range Cannon, a supergun using gunpowder to launch guided projectiles over one thousand miles. While a full-up SLRC prototype won’t be test-fired until 2023, two “test assets” are already launching simulated projectiles called slugs.

 

stealthflanker

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Feb 12, 2010
Messages
393
Reaction score
90
That super-gun is interesting. I'm curious if they will resort to Rocket or Ramjet projectiles or maybe some unusual solutions such as travelling charge.
 

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
10,872
Reaction score
1,235
"Theater Artillery Command and Corp Artillery Element" whoa . that is a new Army if it actually occurs. This will require persistent intent, big and persistent cash and big guns..where from in the resource constrained budget world?
They might as well bring back the U.S. Army Coast Artillery Corps altogether.
 

jsport

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
1,662
Reaction score
108
Rafferty’s team is developing the Strategic Long-Range Cannon, a supergun using gunpowder to launch guided projectiles over one thousand miles. While a full-up SLRC prototype won’t be test-fired until 2023, two “test assets” are already launching simulated projectiles called slugs.

W/O Strategic Long-Range Cannons high cost low density assets like long range hypersonic missiles will not survive and deliver against evolving air defenses.
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
2,108
Reaction score
135
The Army has yet to present a formal acquisition plan for the LRHW 2.0 so we don't really have any insight into how and in what quantity it plans to employ it. OpFires with its large magazine and tactical flexibility is probably a better long term option. Perhaps a US Army and USMC OpFires based solution could be bought in quantity towards the second half of the 2020's.

That said, I'd much rather focus hypersonic acquisition investments towards the AF and Navy programs. The former needs both air-breathing and boost glide, while the latter needs to speed up VLS integration and perhaps look at integrating an AB hypersonic cruise missile on its strike fighter fleet. I would much rather this current upswing in defense budgets be used to bring that to fruition than to advance everything and put really nothing into a sustainable acquisition program going into the other side of the budget cycle. The Army LRHW etc is outside of its LRPF portfolio. PrSM, GMLRS-ER, Next Gen precision artillery rounds and the strategic fires cannon is probably a more important capability IMO. If they can bring all of these into operational service that would be a substantial achievement.
 
Last edited:

AN/AWW-14(V)

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
May 18, 2019
Messages
259
Reaction score
395
The Army has drafted an acquisition strategy calling for at least three additional opportunities for competition on the Precision Strike Missile, giving Raytheon -- which was bumped from the contest in March -- and other interested companies a chance to improve the base missile being developed by Lockheed Martin as a follow-on to the Army Tactical Missile.

 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
12,885
Reaction score
959
The Army has drafted an acquisition strategy calling for at least three additional opportunities for competition on the Precision Strike Missile, giving Raytheon -- which was bumped from the contest in March -- and other interested companies a chance to improve the base missile being developed by Lockheed Martin as a follow-on to the Army Tactical Missile.

This strikes me as just odd. Almost like, "hey Boeing, don't give up. If we decided we don't like the F-35 after 500 units we'll give you another chance to sell that X-32."
 

TomS

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
3,623
Reaction score
509
The Army has drafted an acquisition strategy calling for at least three additional opportunities for competition on the Precision Strike Missile, giving Raytheon -- which was bumped from the contest in March -- and other interested companies a chance to improve the base missile being developed by Lockheed Martin as a follow-on to the Army Tactical Missile.

This strikes me as just odd. Almost like, "hey Boeing, don't give up. If we decided we don't like the F-35 after 500 units we'll give you another chance to sell that X-32."
Or conversely, "hey Lockheed, don't get complacent just because you've won this round. You have to keep being creative or someone else will come with a better idea and take it away from you."
 

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
10,872
Reaction score
1,235
It is not exactly a ringing endorsement of Lockheed Martin, to be sure.
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
2,108
Reaction score
135
Lockheed Martin is integrating technologies into the final product and making that weapon system. I believe they always wanted to spiral this into an open system where propulsion or guidance technologies could be competed in the future instead of it being locked into one OEM for decades. So whether that is competing a future propulsion stack, or seeker concepts etc there will be opportunities to transition capabilities presented by others into the system.

To Lockheed's part they have executed the program on schedule and have demonstrated 3 for 3 in terms of successful firings. Raytheon couldn't even get off the ground. However if someone has something that the program is interested in spiraling in then they want to keep the option open. Not that it would be easy but they will surely compete future capabilities into the system. Whether that results in wholesale transition to a different prime remains to be seen. I highly doubt it. Lockheed has a long track record with ATACMS and has done well on the PrSM. But the plan was always to allow opportunities for innovative proposals to enter into future upgrades so I won't take this as a reflection on Lockheed, Raytheon or whosoever else may be involved.
 
Top