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

LRSO (Long Range Standoff) Cruise Missile

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,815
Reaction score
2,048
Colonial-Marine said:
litzj said:
Mach 2 or 3 is not advantage compare to hypersonic ones.
(Easily targeted by IR sensor but not agile like hypersonic)

Two category weapons are needed

- Extremely stealth but slow (not detected by IR/Radar/Multi-spectral sensor)

- Highly fast (easily detected by enemy sensors, but do not give enough response time to enemy)

Yet when talking about the near future would developing and fielding a supersonic cruise missile or AShM offer a useful stepping-stone to develop and field hypersonic weapons?

Russia, China, India, Japan, and Taiwan all have supersonic AShMs so there must be something there.
 

marauder2048

"I should really just relax"
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
3,158
Reaction score
501
litzj said:
Mach 2 or 3 is not advantage compare to hypersonic ones.
(Easily targeted by IR sensor but not agile like hypersonic)

Two category weapons are needed

- Extremely stealth but slow (not detected by IR/Radar/Multi-spectral sensor)

- Highly fast (easily detected by enemy sensors, but do not give enough response time to enemy)

Or maybe something like JSOW-ER with a supersonic sprint stage; basically an LO Threat-D.
 

litzj

BLOG : http://jaesan-aero.blogspot.com/
Joined
Feb 4, 2012
Messages
262
Reaction score
43
Website
jaesan-aero.blogspot.com
marauder2048 said:
litzj said:
Mach 2 or 3 is not advantage compare to hypersonic ones.
(Easily targeted by IR sensor but not agile like hypersonic)

Two category weapons are needed

- Extremely stealth but slow (not detected by IR/Radar/Multi-spectral sensor)

- Highly fast (easily detected by enemy sensors, but do not give enough response time to enemy)

Or maybe something like JSOW-ER with a supersonic sprint stage; basically an LO Threat-D.

It sounds more reasonable
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
2,315
Reaction score
418
Boeing contracted to integrate LRSO cruise missile with the B-52H bomber


The US Air Force (USAF) Nuclear Weapons Center has awarded Boeing a USD250 million contract to integrate the Long Range Stand-Off (LRSO) cruise missile weapon system with the B-52H large-payload multirole strategic bomber aircraft.

Under the provisions of the contract, Boeing will undertake aircraft and missile carriage equipment development and modification, and full integration and testing of the LRSO for the USAF fleet of B-52H platforms. The programme is expected to be completed by 31 December 2024.

The Air Force Material Command issued a pre-solicitation notification on 10 April 2018, indicating that it intended to award the aircraft original equipment manufacturer (Boeing) up to USD250 million to integrate the LRSO weapon on the USAF's fleet of 76 B-52H bombers between 1 January 2019 and 31 December 2023 (with provision for an additional year if needed).

However, while integration work is now set to begin, the LRSO is still a developmental capability and will not be fielded until the 2030 timeframe.

In August 2017 USAF awarded two separate contracts - each with an estimated, but unconfirmed, value of about USD900 million - to Lockheed Martin and Raytheon for work on the LRSO missile. Both contracts run until 2022, following which the air force will select one concept solution to advance its development under an Engineering, Manufacturing, and Development phase contract.

Intended to penetrate and survive integrated air-defence systems and prosecute strategic targets in support of the Air Force's global attack capability and strategic deterrence core function, the LRSO is a developmental, nuclear-capable cruise missile concept that is being proposed as a significantly enhanced replacement for the currently fielded AGM-86 Air-Launched Cruise Missile (ALCM). Both conventional and nuclear variants of the LRSO weapon are required to reach initial operational capability before the retirement of their respective ALCM versions - around 2030.
 

Mark S.

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Feb 5, 2011
Messages
133
Reaction score
28
I would assume a PDR of each vendor's missile? Is the program structured for a fly-off competition or only a design one?
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
2,315
Reaction score
418
Yes, IIRC a decision on narrowing it down to one should be taken after that.
 

FighterJock

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Oct 29, 2007
Messages
1,760
Reaction score
528
It will be interesting to see who the winner of the fly off will be. As it currently stands, Raytheon have experience with of designing all types of missile that are currently in service with the USAF, Lockheed to date have only designed and built the Senior Prom cruise missile and that did not see service.
 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,815
Reaction score
2,048
It will be interesting to see who the winner of the fly off will be. As it currently stands, Raytheon have experience with of designing all types of missile that are currently in service with the USAF, Lockheed to date have only designed and built the Senior Prom cruise missile and that did not see service.

Have you ever seen this one?

mfc-jassm-masthead.jpg.pc-adaptive.full.medium.jpeg

mfc-jassm-photo-04.jpg

Long-Range-Anti-Ship-Missile-LRASM.jpg

 
Last edited:

FighterJock

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Oct 29, 2007
Messages
1,760
Reaction score
528
It will be interesting to see who the winner of the fly off will be. As it currently stands, Raytheon have experience with of designing all types of missile that are currently in service with the USAF, Lockheed to date have only designed and built the Senior Prom cruise missile and that did not see service.

Have you ever seen this one?

View attachment 618070

View attachment 618071

View attachment 618072



My mistake sferrin I forgot about the JASSM. Damn it. :oops:
 

Mark S.

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Feb 5, 2011
Messages
133
Reaction score
28
This program is one to watch although I doubt we will see artwork or mockups anytime soon. If they're just doing PDR's at the systems level they have a ways to go until the prototypes fly. Speculation on my part but think if they're doing PDR's at this level and later at the complete vehicle level it implies new designs. Others have speculated that they would be growth versions of the ACM and JASSM. Whatever the case the major constraint will be the size of the B-21 weapons bay(s). The B-1B could only carry 4 ACM's (AGM-129) in it's weapon's bay. Think they would want more than that in the B-21.
 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,815
Reaction score
2,048
I would think it would be constrained by the same envelope as AGM-86B/C. And yes, almost certainly new designs. I would expect LM's to resemble something like a stretched JASSM, and Raytheon's something that resembles neither Tomahawk nor AGM-129.
 

marauder2048

"I should really just relax"
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
3,158
Reaction score
501
I would think it would be constrained by the same envelope as AGM-86B/C. And yes, almost certainly new designs. I would expect LM's to resemble something like a stretched JASSM, and Raytheon's something that resembles neither Tomahawk nor AGM-129.

I'm thinking the smallest missile that can go out to 1600 nautical miles. For Lockheed, that may be no more than than a JASSM-XR rev.
 

Mark S.

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Feb 5, 2011
Messages
133
Reaction score
28
This is an old article and I'm not a fan of FAS but it is interesting in the context of the need of a SEAD missile for the bombers:


If the engine for the LRSO is based on ADVENT technology and has a third air stream then you could have a stealthy long range cruise missile with a secondary role of SEAD or more accurately DEAD. You accomplish this by closing the by-pass stream redirecting the air and super cruising. Wouldn't need much more speed maybe up to MACH 2 to get the missile to the SAM site before the bomber reaches the radar range of the site based on it's RCS. Would certainly have more range than the AARGM-ER. Even if in this context the range of the LRSO is half or even a quarter of the 1600 miles it would be useful. Would assume the small engine manufacturers have used Computational Fluid Dynamics and Finite element Analysis for compression, combustion/heat transfer analysis to create a more efficient engine since the first ones for cruise missiles that were developed 40 years ago. It would make this missile a cross between the ALCM and SRAM only stealthier.
 

Forest Green

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Jun 11, 2019
Messages
545
Reaction score
217
This is an old article and I'm not a fan of FAS but it is interesting in the context of the need of a SEAD missile for the bombers:


If the engine for the LRSO is based on ADVENT technology and has a third air stream then you could have a stealthy long range cruise missile with a secondary role of SEAD or more accurately DEAD. You accomplish this by closing the by-pass stream redirecting the air and super cruising. Wouldn't need much more speed maybe up to MACH 2 to get the missile to the SAM site before the bomber reaches the radar range of the site based on it's RCS. Would certainly have more range than the AARGM-ER. Even if in this context the range of the LRSO is half or even a quarter of the 1600 miles it would be useful. Would assume the small engine manufacturers have used Computational Fluid Dynamics and Finite element Analysis for compression, combustion/heat transfer analysis to create a more efficient engine since the first ones for cruise missiles that were developed 40 years ago. It would make this missile a cross between the ALCM and SRAM only stealthier.
I think that would be best served by something like MASSM than a large cruise missile, or maybe SRAM-II if you really want Mach 2.
 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,815
Reaction score
2,048
I would think it would be constrained by the same envelope as AGM-86B/C. And yes, almost certainly new designs. I would expect LM's to resemble something like a stretched JASSM, and Raytheon's something that resembles neither Tomahawk nor AGM-129.

I'm thinking the smallest missile that can go out to 1600 nautical miles. For Lockheed, that may be no more than than a JASSM-XR rev.


Given that it's a nuclear missile, if they could swap out that 1000lb warhead for a W80 that weighs a couple hundred, maybe they could find some more room for fuel. and stay in the same OML? That would enable the B-1B to carry 24.
 

marauder2048

"I should really just relax"
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
3,158
Reaction score
501
If the engine for the LRSO is based on ADVENT technology and has a third air stream then you could have a stealthy long range cruise missile with a secondary role of SEAD or more accurately DEAD. You accomplish this by closing the by-pass stream redirecting the air and super cruising.

Even for sub-sonic cruise missiles, I've seen papers suggesting that spillage drag can constitute up to 30% of total drag.
Not sure how much work there's been on third stream expendables.
 

bobbymike

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

bobbymike

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

Forest Green

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Jun 11, 2019
Messages
545
Reaction score
217
I struggle to imagine how developing a conventional version too would cost that much more though. It seems kind of like developing a bomber that only drops nuclear bombs to save money.
 
Last edited:

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,815
Reaction score
2,048
I struggle to imagine how developing a conventional version too would cost that much more though. It seems kind of like developing a bomber that only drops nuclear bombs to save money.

Different warhead sizes, weight and balance, structural differences, etc. Swapping a B61 out for a Mk83 on a bomber requires no changes to the aircraft.
 

trose213

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Jul 29, 2018
Messages
158
Reaction score
59
I struggle to imagine how developing a conventional version too would cost that much more though. It seems kind of like developing a bomber that only drops nuclear bombs to save money.

Because the capability already exists in the XR.
 

Josh_TN

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 4, 2019
Messages
757
Reaction score
389
I had assumed it would be armed with refurbished W-80s, of which there are a large number in storage from retired weapons (and active ALCMs). It sounds like they are building new warheads?
 

bobbymike

ACCESS: USAP
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
10,726
Reaction score
1,801
I had assumed it would be armed with refurbished W-80s, of which there are a large number in storage from retired weapons (and active ALCMs). It sounds like they are building new warheads?
From Defense News

W80-4 — This warhead design is for the Air Force’s long-range standoff weapon, or LRSO, a new air-launched nuclear cruise missile. Because the warhead is being designed at the same time as the LRSO delivery system — the first time in 30 years the two have been done in parallel — the program faces “unique” risks, the NNSA report says.
In addition, the program “experienced a loss of $120 million in productivity due to delays associated with Continuing Resolutions since the beginning of FY 2016. As a result, ramp-up of management and operating program staffing was constrained for 3 years across the entire nuclear security enterprise,” leading to a four-month delay from where the program ideally should be, the report states.
Overall, the agency estimates a program cost of $7.6 billion to $11.7 billion.
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
2,315
Reaction score
418
Air Force selects single contractor for long-range standoff nuclear weapon

KIRTLAND AIR FORCE BASE, N.M. -- The Air Force announced today plans to continue the Long-Range Standoff Weapon’s development with Raytheon Company as a sole-source contractor. The LRSO cruise missile is a critical element of the Air Force’s on-going nuclear recapitalization efforts.

The Air Force previously awarded two contracts for the LRSO Technology Maturation and Risk (TMRR) phase, one to Raytheon and one to Lockheed Martin, in August 2017.

After an extensive evaluation of contractor programmatic and technical approach during the TMRR’s preliminary design reviews, the Air Force decided to focus on Raytheon’s design.

“Our competitive TMRR phase, which included both Lockheed Martin and Raytheon as the prime contractors, enabled us to select a high-confidence design at this point in the acquisition process,” said Maj. Gen. Shaun Morris, Air Force Nuclear Weapons Center commander and program executive officer for strategic systems.

“And this early off-ramp of a contractor is completely in line with the existing LRSO acquisition strategy, which included periodic reviews to assess contractor designs. Lockheed Martin has been an excellent contractor and partner throughout the TMRR effort and this pivot to Raytheon does not represent a lack of effort or commitment on their part. Lockheed Martin has supported the nuclear enterprise for decades and we continue to value their expertise in sensors and nuclear certification and surety.”

“This is not a down-select per se; instead, we are reframing our relationship with Lockheed Martin to focus on specific technology maturation we believe either has future applicability for the final LRSO design or will reduce overall program risk,” said Elizabeth Thorn, AFNWC’s LRSO system program manager.

Communication is underway with the prime contractors and an orderly closeout process has commenced at the affected Lockheed Martin and supplier offices. In addition, interagency stakeholders have been notified.

The LRSO program office is now developing plans to pivot to a sole-source environment. It is also exploring opportunities to redirect funding to critical areas and potentially move some activities into the TMRR phase currently scheduled for the Engineering and Manufacturing Development phase, including flight tests.

Resource reallocation efforts are underway, in the prime contractor and sub-tier contractor offices, according to Thorn.

“I am confident in the program office’s ability to execute the next phase’s contract negotiations in a single-source environment and maintain schedule and affordability,” Morris said. “We are committed to acquiring an affordable LRSO weapon system and we have exceptional cost and design insight into both contractors’ strategies, due to our progress with the acquisition reviews and the cost-capability trades.”

Morris reiterated the off-ramping of a contractor in the TMRR phase is consistent with the LRSO acquisition strategy and different than Boeing’s decision last year not to bid on the EMD contract for the Ground Based Strategic Deterrent, another critical Air Force nuclear weapon modernization effort.

The LRSO program office, located at Eglin Air Force Base, Florida, is part of AFNWC’s Air Delivered Capabilities Directorate. Headquartered at Kirtland AFB, AFNWC is responsible for synchronizing all aspects of nuclear materiel management on behalf of Air Force Materiel Command, in direct support of Air Force Global Strike Command. The center has more than 1,300 personnel assigned to 18 locations worldwide.
 

FighterJock

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Oct 29, 2007
Messages
1,760
Reaction score
528
Air Force selects single contractor for long-range standoff nuclear weapon

KIRTLAND AIR FORCE BASE, N.M. -- The Air Force announced today plans to continue the Long-Range Standoff Weapon’s development with Raytheon Company as a sole-source contractor. The LRSO cruise missile is a critical element of the Air Force’s on-going nuclear recapitalization efforts.

The Air Force previously awarded two contracts for the LRSO Technology Maturation and Risk (TMRR) phase, one to Raytheon and one to Lockheed Martin, in August 2017.

After an extensive evaluation of contractor programmatic and technical approach during the TMRR’s preliminary design reviews, the Air Force decided to focus on Raytheon’s design.

“Our competitive TMRR phase, which included both Lockheed Martin and Raytheon as the prime contractors, enabled us to select a high-confidence design at this point in the acquisition process,” said Maj. Gen. Shaun Morris, Air Force Nuclear Weapons Center commander and program executive officer for strategic systems.

“And this early off-ramp of a contractor is completely in line with the existing LRSO acquisition strategy, which included periodic reviews to assess contractor designs. Lockheed Martin has been an excellent contractor and partner throughout the TMRR effort and this pivot to Raytheon does not represent a lack of effort or commitment on their part. Lockheed Martin has supported the nuclear enterprise for decades and we continue to value their expertise in sensors and nuclear certification and surety.”

“This is not a down-select per se; instead, we are reframing our relationship with Lockheed Martin to focus on specific technology maturation we believe either has future applicability for the final LRSO design or will reduce overall program risk,” said Elizabeth Thorn, AFNWC’s LRSO system program manager.

Communication is underway with the prime contractors and an orderly closeout process has commenced at the affected Lockheed Martin and supplier offices. In addition, interagency stakeholders have been notified.

The LRSO program office is now developing plans to pivot to a sole-source environment. It is also exploring opportunities to redirect funding to critical areas and potentially move some activities into the TMRR phase currently scheduled for the Engineering and Manufacturing Development phase, including flight tests.

Resource reallocation efforts are underway, in the prime contractor and sub-tier contractor offices, according to Thorn.

“I am confident in the program office’s ability to execute the next phase’s contract negotiations in a single-source environment and maintain schedule and affordability,” Morris said. “We are committed to acquiring an affordable LRSO weapon system and we have exceptional cost and design insight into both contractors’ strategies, due to our progress with the acquisition reviews and the cost-capability trades.”

Morris reiterated the off-ramping of a contractor in the TMRR phase is consistent with the LRSO acquisition strategy and different than Boeing’s decision last year not to bid on the EMD contract for the Ground Based Strategic Deterrent, another critical Air Force nuclear weapon modernization effort.

The LRSO program office, located at Eglin Air Force Base, Florida, is part of AFNWC’s Air Delivered Capabilities Directorate. Headquartered at Kirtland AFB, AFNWC is responsible for synchronizing all aspects of nuclear materiel management on behalf of Air Force Materiel Command, in direct support of Air Force Global Strike Command. The center has more than 1,300 personnel assigned to 18 locations worldwide.

So Raytheon Company wins the LRSO as a sole source contractor minus Lockheed Martin as a second company, wonder what will happen to Lockheed Martin's Missiles and Space division in the long run after the JASSM-ER missile orders have been delivered?
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
2,315
Reaction score
418
So Raytheon Company wins the LRSO as a sole source contractor minus Lockheed Martin as a second company, wonder what will happen to Lockheed Martin's Missiles and Space division in the long run after the JASSM-ER missile orders have been delivered?

Lockheed Martin has done quite well in scooping up a lot of missile work for pretty much all three services (and the MDA). The JASSM program of record has been expanded to 10,000 missiles IIRC. More if you add the LRASM. One would assume that as the JASSM begins to tail off the AF would look at a future cruise missile..
 

FighterJock

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Oct 29, 2007
Messages
1,760
Reaction score
528
So Raytheon Company wins the LRSO as a sole source contractor minus Lockheed Martin as a second company, wonder what will happen to Lockheed Martin's Missiles and Space division in the long run after the JASSM-ER missile orders have been delivered?

Lockheed Martin has done quite well in scooping up a lot of missile work for pretty much all three services (and the MDA). The JASSM program of record has been expanded to 10,000 missiles IIRC. More if you add the LRASM. One would assume that as the JASSM begins to tail off the AF would look at a future cruise missile..

So the outlook for Lockheed Martin's Missiles and Space division is better than I first feared. With the prospect of a possible future missile program looking good once the JASSM program has ended, they do not want to give all the programs to Raytheon.
 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,815
Reaction score
2,048
So Raytheon Company wins the LRSO as a sole source contractor minus Lockheed Martin as a second company, wonder what will happen to Lockheed Martin's Missiles and Space division in the long run after the JASSM-ER missile orders have been delivered?

Lockheed Martin has done quite well in scooping up a lot of missile work for pretty much all three services (and the MDA). The JASSM program of record has been expanded to 10,000 missiles IIRC. More if you add the LRASM. One would assume that as the JASSM begins to tail off the AF would look at a future cruise missile..

So the outlook for Lockheed Martin's Missiles and Space division is better than I first feared. With the prospect of a possible future missile program looking good once the JASSM program has ended, they do not want to give all the programs to Raytheon.

LM is going to be making JASSM for another decade or two at the least. 10,000 missiles is a metric f--kton.
 

Mark S.

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Feb 5, 2011
Messages
133
Reaction score
28
It seems DOD often likes to see a competition between a conservative design and one that has more technical risk. Wonder which one won? Would flight testing have started by now? Think it will be a long time before we know. It seems that Lockheed and Raytheon have been splitting up the missile programs fairly evenly. Both have enough work to see them through the next 10 years.
 

bobbymike

ACCESS: USAP
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
10,726
Reaction score
1,801
It seems DOD often likes to see a competition between a conservative design and one that has more technical risk. Wonder which one won? Would flight testing have started by now? Think it will be a long time before we know. It seems that Lockheed and Raytheon have been splitting up the missile programs fairly evenly. Both have enough work to see them through the next 10 years.
The article says “a high confidence design” ??
 

Mark S.

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Feb 5, 2011
Messages
133
Reaction score
28
Don't think being in Engineering and Manufacturing Development can save a program from a political ax. This award may be the result of using provisions of the Defense Production Act to make the award while eliminating a potential protest. Don't know enough about the act to be sure. If they don't pull ahead EMD then they haven't gained much by doing this and may increase costs. Some back of the envelope calculations would suggest the 1000 total would be manufactured over 5 to 6 years with a production rate of 170 to 200 per year. So if they start in 2025 they would be done with production at the end of 2029 or sometime in 2030 to meet the retirement date of the ALCM. This gives them 4 1/2 years for EMD which seems a bit long if they have "a high confidence design".
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
2,315
Reaction score
418
5-6 years in EMD, including developmental and operational testing in support of a medium-long range air-launched nuclear missile seems pretty good. The Navy is spending about as much time on to go from contract award to IOC for the JSOW-ER. Though they may have a high-confidence design, one is still left to imagine what technologies a nuclear ALCM that needs to be survivable in the 2030-2060 time-frame needs to possess to be a viable weapon. Not hard to see that taking a bit of time to mature and fully flesh out.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Top