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

AeroFranz said:
I'm doing some research for a project at work - does anyone know what the 21" motor on the SM-3 block IIa is? I'm assuming the booster is still the Mk 72, but what about the second stage? is it an enlarged derivative of the Mk 104?
Click to expand...

Fairly certain it's a clean sheet design. If you don't mind me asking, what's your "project at work"? :D
 
sferrin said:
AeroFranz said:
I'm doing some research for a project at work - does anyone know what the 21" motor on the SM-3 block IIa is? I'm assuming the booster is still the Mk 72, but what about the second stage? is it an enlarged derivative of the Mk 104?
Click to expand...

Fairly certain it's a clean sheet design. If you don't mind me asking, what's your "project at work"? :D
Click to expand...
How to send my boss in LEO orbit! ;)
Just kidding, I'm afraid i can't tell much, but the booster and motor are needed to get an unspecified "package" a long distance away from a surface combatant (or SSGN, the CONOPS wasn't entirely fleshed out).
We're not going to get a bespoke first and second stage designed just for us, so I'm considering existing booster/motor stacks as well as what launchers (and hence platforms) they fit in. So obviously 21" diameter seems like a nice design point, with lots of motor options as well as platforms capable of hosting systems that size. However, am i right in saying that the VLS can accommodate larger diameters? what's the biggest thing that's ever been fit?
 
AeroFranz said:
However, am i right in saying that the VLS can accommodate larger diameters? what's the biggest thing that's ever been fit?
Click to expand...

I have a recollection that they demonstrated ATACMS (almost 24 inches) in a Mk 41 with a very thin-wall canister. But that was definitely pushing the limits.
 
AeroFranz said:
sferrin said:
AeroFranz said:
I'm doing some research for a project at work - does anyone know what the 21" motor on the SM-3 block IIa is? I'm assuming the booster is still the Mk 72, but what about the second stage? is it an enlarged derivative of the Mk 104?
Click to expand...

Fairly certain it's a clean sheet design. If you don't mind me asking, what's your "project at work"? :D
Click to expand...
How to send my boss in LEO orbit! ;)
Just kidding, I'm afraid i can't tell much, but the booster and motor are needed to get an unspecified "package" a long distance away from a surface combatant (or SSGN, the CONOPS wasn't entirely fleshed out).
We're not going to get a bespoke first and second stage designed just for us, so I'm considering existing booster/motor stacks as well as what launchers (and hence platforms) they fit in. So obviously 21" diameter seems like a nice design point, with lots of motor options as well as platforms capable of hosting systems that size. However, am i right in saying that the VLS can accommodate larger diameters? what's the biggest thing that's ever been fit?
Click to expand...
There are all kinds of things you could do. Put a Harpoon booster on PrSM and stick it in Harpoon canisters. Use ATACMs motors and the Mk57 VLS. Or, if TomS is correct, shorten and use in Mk41. (They can definitely fit more than 21" in those cells as LRASM is significantly larger.) These are shown in Mk57 cells. The three on the right are too long for Mk41s. If I were to redo these I'd use Zombie for the upper stage, rather than the 2nd ATACMs. It seems to have a TVC system.

1604511792610.png
 
Last edited:
I believe the surface test of NATACMS was done from a modified mlrs. There was SLATACMS (Sea-Launched ATACMS), which was a notion by Lockheed to build a variant for use in VLS, but I don't know of a test firing. Here's a report from LM on their pitch for a submarine-launched SLATACMS launching from the SSN VLS system which the latter 688s and earlier 774s use for Tomahawks.
 
TomS had a post in a different thread about the test:
"In November 1996, Lockheed actually test flew an ATACMS from a Mk41 VLS at the Desert Ship facility at White Sands. IIRC, it used a Mk72 booster repurposed from SM-2 Block IV. The canister was obviously not a standard one -- LM had developed a special thin-wall design that I believe would also have been used in the dual-pack SM-2 concept."

i found mention of this online, although not in greater detail. @Moose is right, the at sea test was done using an M270 launcher

“The final NATACMS Block IA prototype missile test was an “at sea” firing from an M270 launcher on the deck of the USS Mount Vernon positioned off the coast of San Diego, California. The shot flew 75 nautical miles for a direct hit on the target.”

I suppose integration would be easier (relatively speaking) this time round if the Mk 57 VLS was used instead
 
breakingdefense.com

Project Convergence: Its Success Could Draw Army Astray - Breaking Defense

While Project Convergence’s first big test, the Army’s “experiment at scale for a combined arms operations,” was deemed a great success, the service must resist the urge to scale-up so rapidly that the events lose their value as experiments or become a fat target for budget cutters. The...
breakingdefense.com breakingdefense.com
 
I hope it works. Their goal was to make a projectile that could travel a thousand miles for a half million; if they could pull that off that would be fairly revolutionary.
 
Josh_TN said:
I hope it works. Their goal was to make a projectile that could travel a thousand miles for a half million; if they could pull that off that would be fairly revolutionary.
Click to expand...
1434402221647.jpg

With guns/projectiles like that it could put more ordinance on target further away and faster than a CVN. Of course it couldn't do anything ELSE a CVN can do. . .
 
I was actually thinking the USN/USMC might want to put a battery on one of the mobile expeditionary platforms if the army can get it to work. You wouldn't really even need a stable firing platform since the round would be self guiding once it got to altitude. You could base it outside the first island chain and still hit the Chinese coast or bombard Kalingrad from the Atlantic.
 
Josh_TN said:
I was actually thinking the USN/USMC might want to put a battery on one of the mobile expeditionary platforms if the army can get it to work. You wouldn't really even need a stable firing platform since the round would be self guiding once it got to altitude. You could base it outside the first island chain and still hit the Chinese coast or bombard Kalingrad from the Atlantic.
Click to expand...
I'd be amazed if the Army would design the system to meet shipboard insensitive munition reqs. Particularly handling.

That HVP came to land based powder guns before any of the Army's large caliber guided rounds made it
shipboard is a cautionary tale.
 
marauder2048 said:
Josh_TN said:
I was actually thinking the USN/USMC might want to put a battery on one of the mobile expeditionary platforms if the army can get it to work. You wouldn't really even need a stable firing platform since the round would be self guiding once it got to altitude. You could base it outside the first island chain and still hit the Chinese coast or bombard Kalingrad from the Atlantic.
Click to expand...
I'd be amazed if the Army would design the system to meet shipboard insensitive munition reqs. Particularly handling.

That HVP came to land based powder guns before any of the Army's large caliber guided rounds made it
shipboard is a cautionary tale.
Click to expand...
I'd expect it to happen if the shooting gets to the point where this is actually helpful, regardless of regulations.

The question to me is whether ships can withstand the recoil forces without major modifications.
 
marauder2048 said:
Josh_TN said:
I was actually thinking the USN/USMC might want to put a battery on one of the mobile expeditionary platforms if the army can get it to work. You wouldn't really even need a stable firing platform since the round would be self guiding once it got to altitude. You could base it outside the first island chain and still hit the Chinese coast or bombard Kalingrad from the Atlantic.
Click to expand...
I'd be amazed if the Army would design the system to meet shipboard insensitive munition reqs. Particularly handling.

That HVP came to land based powder guns before any of the Army's large caliber guided rounds made it
shipboard is a cautionary tale.
Click to expand...
One of the bigger problems with Army shells going to Navy is the size.

The Army Does not have a 127mmm gun, and the navy lacks a 155mm to use Army shells.

And fun fact, ARmy shell handing regs are just as tight as the Navys. We don't feel like losing people cause Private Numbnuts going on the 49th hour of no sleep drops a 155mm high explosive shell from a LMTV bed by mistake. I have seen that happen before in NTC. Then you have the fact that we go cross country with them on back of trucks and the like in the open weather. We really dont feel like have those go off on a bumpy road in a middle of a convoy.

Add in the fact that the military has been trying to streamline everything means that the powder in the the Army 155mm is the same stuff found in Navy 127mm so we only need one company to make it instead of five. Also it needs to be remember that Army 155 shells are in ships as we speak.

As cargo, you think the LPDS/LHA/Marine Carriers go around with out Arty? Nope, they carry those shells in them just fine with no issues. A Marine Excal round is the same as an Army one, it rolls off the same factory and sits in the same depot until it is issued.

The biggest issue with Sticking the SLRC on a ship is not the ammo, thats easy shit anyways, change out the powder and be done with it if it is an issue.

No its making sure the damn gun and it's gear can survive the salt water and the like day in and day out.

And do it cheaply too...
 
I had assumed the trajectory was more semi-ballistic; I wonder if that ballistic arc in the video is truly representative.
 
Josh_TN said:
I had assumed the trajectory was more semi-ballistic; I wonder if that ballistic arc in the video is truly representative.
Click to expand...
Probably not. Even ATACMs isn't purely ballistic.


I swear this thing gets more potato every time I see it. I wonder if YouTube has an algorithm that goes through and recompresses stuff that doesn't have a lot of views. "Has only been viewed 20 times in the last year? Squeeze that sucka down to potato quality."
 
Missiles are one shot wonders to hit high value c2 tgts after SEAD is nearly complete.


Friendly missile and gun batteries will be under such counter battery fire one better concentrate on missile and gun counter counter battery. TACAIR can do own JSEAD.
 
sferrin said:
Good thing the enemy SAMs don't work. ;)
Click to expand...
A TBM surveillance fence out to 500+ km for that PrSM shot would be a real challenge for the radar depicted in
rotating mode.

And terminally, that missile is coming in close to the max elevation angle for the radar
 
The plan very much is to field a family of LRPF (Army budgets permitting) across a spectrum of performance, range and cost. PrSM is just the lower end/entry level of that capability. LRHW is actually pacing if not exceeding the pace of PrSM. But PrSM itself is open to some enhancement over its life cycle with both a seeker and possibly a propulsion upgrade possible inside a decade or so. For how much the Army is expecting to pay for the AUR, it actually brings some pretty good capability IMHO.
 

Attachments

  • Lockheed Martin LRPF.jpg
    Lockheed Martin LRPF.jpg
    144.6 KB · Views: 52
Last edited:
Lc89 said:
Is there an army plan to put a Ramjet on a future variant of the PRSM?
Click to expand...

We don't know. There's some sort of novel propulsion planned for future models, but my guess would be advanced propellant, not a ramjet. No matter what you do with the inlets, a ramjet reduces the diameter and thus weight of the payload.
 
TomS said:
Lc89 said:
Is there an army plan to put a Ramjet on a future variant of the PRSM?
Click to expand...

We don't know. There's some sort of novel propulsion planned for future models, but my guess would be advanced propellant, not a ramjet. No matter what you do with the inlets, a ramjet reduces the diameter and thus weight of the payload.
Click to expand...

Deep throttling upgrades with thrust vectoring could get you a controllable SRM within a missile with lesser drag from control surfaces. Could be worth considering if they want to go towards less mature technology and bring it to life. I know this is something being looked at for SLRC, rocket and cannon projectile programs so perhaps also worth looking into this for PrsM like applications.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yI8QxYUWjng&t=105s
 

Attachments

  • APKWS_VTS.jpg
    APKWS_VTS.jpg
    139.5 KB · Views: 54
  • LRPF_Throttle.jpg
    LRPF_Throttle.jpg
    104 KB · Views: 48
  • LowerTier_VTS.jpg
    LowerTier_VTS.jpg
    103.1 KB · Views: 49
PrSM seems to be simple here now 500 klicks solution where as longer range stuff is more experimental and expensive. But the army is working on several different longer ranged items.
 
The LRHW first battery with residual operational capability is due to be fielded by 2023. PrSM IOC is also expected in 2023. OpFire testing for the AUR is expected in 2023 but it is probably a more second half of 2020s solution in case the Army decides to take it up. So the Army has options and the range of options probably explains why they are prioritizing the multi-mode seeker on the PrSM before looking at extending its range.
 
There is also the Medium Range Capability and the Strategic Long Ranged Canon. The latter looks like a long shot, but the former appears to just be buying USN missiles without modification, so that seems like just a question of time and money. The 2023 fielding seems extremely optimistic however.
 
Yes there are many options available across the spectrum. LRHW seems to be on track, but 2021 tests will likely be indicative of whether that first battery will be fielded by 2023 or not. Anyhow, an option exists to scale that program up so you aren't really focusing on invention as much as acquisition and production. PrSM likewise should be doable by 2023 if not maybe by 2024 with 2021 testing again likely to be indicative of whether they stick to their timelines or not. Adapting navy's missiles likewise is a pretty low risk path to get that medium range fires capability and OpFires remains that high end higher risk capability which is going to be hugely dependent upon what DARPA is able to demonstrate. It is really impressive what they are attempting to do and it would be foolish for the Army to back out of that program and leave DARPA without a transition partner.

I think the Army is in a relatively good place with its LRPF effort. The limiting factor is going to be acquisition funding and that will likely determine the high:low and Short, medium and long range mix in the inventory. SLRC and some of the far term capabilities are probably less certain but those are essentially S&T programs so not really part of any inventory discussion at the moment as far as I can tell.
 
GARGEAN said:
marauder2048 said:
And terminally, that missile is coming in close to the max elevation angle for the radar
Click to expand...
Might be a concern only if firing at single AA battery standing in the middle of the desert. Not against proper ADN.
Click to expand...
I want to know more about the proper ADNs that just happen to be scanning the column
above another engagement radar with sufficient reaction time to launch an interceptor
with a short enough flyout and good enough kinematics to hit a high diver.
 
bring_it_on said:
Deep throttling upgrades with thrust vectoring could get you a controllable SRM within a missile with lesser drag from control surfaces
Click to expand...
bring_it_on said:
The plan very much is to field a family of LRPF (Army budgets permitting) across a spectrum of performance, range and cost. PrSM is just the lower end/entry level of that capability. LRHW is actually pacing if not exceeding the pace of PrSM. But PrSM itself is open to some enhancement over its life cycle with both a seeker and possibly a propulsion upgrade possible inside a decade or so. For how much the Army is expecting to pay for the AUR, it actually brings some pretty good capability IMHO.
Click to expand...
Agreed; I tend to think they'd look at the throttleable boosters developed for OpFires.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom