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

LRSO (Long Range Standoff) Cruise Missile

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,948
Reaction score
286
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
2,325
Reaction score
69
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
217
Reaction score
3
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
1,910
Reaction score
8
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.

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Feb 5, 2011
Messages
93
Reaction score
6
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
1,910
Reaction score
8
Yes, IIRC a decision on narrowing it down to one should be taken after that.
 

FighterJock

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Oct 29, 2007
Messages
1,030
Reaction score
25
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

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,948
Reaction score
286
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

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Oct 29, 2007
Messages
1,030
Reaction score
25
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.

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Feb 5, 2011
Messages
93
Reaction score
6
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

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,948
Reaction score
286
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
2,325
Reaction score
69
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.

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Feb 5, 2011
Messages
93
Reaction score
6
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

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Jun 11, 2019
Messages
319
Reaction score
98
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

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,948
Reaction score
286
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
2,325
Reaction score
69
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.
 
Top