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

Forest Green said:
So question, can the SM-6s it can carry be used for air defence as well?
Click to expand...

I think out of the box, no. I believe that trailer uses a variant of the Army's artillery system. But they have to be looking at ultimately integrating that capability since they are already using SM-6 full up rounds. Perhaps IBCS will ultimately link to them. Pretty sure they are handing off target solutions to individual MIM-104 launchers now.
 
Forest Green said:
Josh_TN said:
Perhaps IBCS will ultimately link to them. Pretty sure they are handing off target solutions to individual MIM-104 launchers now.
Click to expand...
That's what I was thinking, seems like a missed opportunity otherwise. With any luck it might morph into a mobile Aegis Ashore system.
Click to expand...
The thing that the Russians will complain about will be SM-3s pretty much being a hop skip and a jump away once you integrate an air capability into the system.
 
Forest Green said:
Josh_TN said:
Perhaps IBCS will ultimately link to them. Pretty sure they are handing off target solutions to individual MIM-104 launchers now.
Click to expand...
That's what I was thinking, seems like a missed opportunity otherwise. With any luck it might morph into a mobile Aegis Ashore system.
Click to expand...
That’s already being built in Guam with LTAMDS, sentinel A4 and SPY-7. I suspect when used there, the network will command SM-6 for air defense. Outside that chain, it’s not funded at the moment. You would need some sort of RIG-360 enhancement to support SM-6 or a new SM-6 datalink like the one planned earlier. You would also need to make the launcher IFCN compatible. All of that is not funded and the Guam architecture is going to be unique to that application.
 
Forest Green said:
Josh_TN said:
The thing that the Russians will complain about will be SM-3s pretty much being a hop skip and a jump away once you integrate an air capability into the system.
Click to expand...
There are already SM-3s in Eastern Europe though.
Click to expand...

And they never stop complaining. :)

Actually to be fair, the original gripe was that the Aegis Ashore sites could hide Tomahawks, though I believe it was offered for them to inspect the sites before the INF treaty imploded.

In any case, for NATO in general and the US in particular, pissing off the Russians is more a feature than bug now.
 
Forest Green said:
jsport said:
taskandpurpose.com

Why the Army wants to slap robot arms onto its mobile artillery pieces

The Army is developing a robotic arm to load howitzers.
taskandpurpose.com taskandpurpose.com
Click to expand...
"60 pound rounds." More like 100lbs for a 155mm isn't it?
Click to expand...

Yeah, but the quoted soldier is in the 101st Airborne and the pictures and video show a 105mm Light Gun. So they're talking about something other than 155mm. I couldn't find a 105mm cartridge that heavy, but they might be talking about the 2-round ammo box or something similar. Or, knowing soldiers, they just made up a number for the camera dude.
 
Last edited:
isayyo2 said:
bring_it_on said:
Those who want to build new howitzers as opposed to the Army's plan of carrying out modifications in house.
Click to expand...
Seems like every time the Army innovates in-house, Congress squashes it :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Congress isn't quashing anything. It wants to have options to either fund an Army run modification program with ERCA-modifications to existing vehicles, or a new-build production program using the same ERCA-modifications. It will allow the Army to buy/modify 20 prototypes until it provides that assessment.
 
bring_it_on said:
isayyo2 said:
bring_it_on said:
Those who want to build new howitzers as opposed to the Army's plan of carrying out modifications in house.
Click to expand...
Seems like every time the Army innovates in-house, Congress squashes it :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Congress isn't quashing anything. It wants to have options to either fund an Army run modification program with ERCA-modifications to existing vehicles, or a new-build production program using the same ERCA-modifications. It will allow the Army to buy/modify 20 prototypes until it provides that assessment.
Click to expand...
Appreciate the correction.
Do you think it could lead to a true completion with K9 and PzH2000, or is it just deciding which domestic contractor: BAE, General Dynamics etc would build the M1299?
 
As far as the program is concerned, I believe it's the latter. Congress wants options on what to do once the operational prototyping program concludes (which is what it funded under ERCA) and the whole thing transitions to a program of record.
 
There is a desire in Congress for a look at having a wider competition for manufacturers to submit their vehicle carrying ERCA's gun, vaguely similar to how the OMFV competitors are offering their vehicles with XM913, rather than Army's plan to integrate their whole weapon system onto a platform. I don't know if they have the votes to actually get that through if Army really pushes back.
 
Moose said:
There is a desire in Congress for a look at having a wider competition for manufacturers to submit their vehicle carrying ERCA's gun, vaguely similar to how the OMFV competitors are offering their vehicles with XM913, rather than Army's plan to integrate their whole weapon system onto a platform. I don't know if they have the votes to actually get that through if Army really pushes back.
Click to expand...
It seems a bit late for that now. It depends whether they want competition or quicker ISD.
 
I thought the whole point of the longer barrel was less propellant than an L52 for the same distance.
 
Forest Green said:
TomS said:
No, it's to give you enough volume to fully expand a larger amount of propellant.
Click to expand...
I was under the impression that it was never quite fully expanded until the shell left the barrel.
Click to expand...

OK, yes. Probably better to say "take full advantage" of the larger propellant charge. Same point though -- if you want more range, you need more powder, and to get the extra energy out of more powder into the projectile, you need more barrel length.

Don't be fooled by comparisons to small arms, where more barrel can get more velocity with a fixed charge (up to a point). Artillery charges are much more optimized to specific barrel lengths.
 
Forest Green said:
TomS said:
No, it's to give you enough volume to fully expand a larger amount of propellant.
Click to expand...
I was under the impression that it was never quite fully expanded until the shell left the barrel.
Click to expand...

The longer barrel will give you a longer range for a given amount of propellant. But to reach the ranges they are shooting for, they also are increasing the amount of propellant - the gun can fire standard MACs charges, but it also has a "super charge", both in bag and canister form right now, that exceeds a full MACs load (seven charges? EDIT: six). The breach is redesigned from a semi-screw to breach block to withstand that extra pressure, but apparently the barrel has issues with the pressure and especial the wear from the drive band. The new base bleed and RAP rounds are supposed to use a softer drive band to help attenuate barrel wear, but apparently they are just putting too much pepper on the round to have an acceptable barrel life. I've heard barrel wear is so bad that the life expectancy is in the low to mid hundreds.

EDIT: adding a graphic

 
Forest Green said:
I wonder if MRC can fire Op-Fires too? That would be better than using a different launcher.

The U.S. Army’s Strategic Mid-Range Fires (SMRF) System
(Formerly Mid-Range Capabilities [MRC] System)
Click to expand...

I don't think the launcher is compatible. OpFires is apparently a 32-inch booster, while the MRC launcher is built around four 21-inch canisters that fold down inside an enclosed trailer. Any way you stack the Op-Fires rounds, they'll be bigger than that enclosure.

Now, OpFires could probably be controlled by the same operations center that runs MRC. It's in the right range band for the targets MRC would be looking at.
 
The OpFires launcher is specifically palletized in a standard TEU footprint that can be loaded onto the US Army's palletized HEMETT vehicle, so the system wouldn't be loaded into a different launcher:


As noted, it likely would be integrated with the MRC's batter operations vehicle if adopted, but right now I believe it is just a DARPA project.
 
Forest Green said:
So same truck, different tubes.
Click to expand...
Yeah, different trailors with the same HEMMT tractor. Like pretty much all things US Army. DARPA is specifically shooting for a a TEU sized TEL container with all the power and communications equipment for transmitting guidance to the missile integral to the container unit. The idea is that an existing palletized load system can be turned into a TEL with no modifications, just a different container.

en.wikipedia.org

Palletized Load System - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
 
Since the TEL is a coffin-type launcher wouldn't the Tomahawks being launched be CGM-109 instead of BGM-109 and the SM-6s the CIM-174 instead of BIM-174?
 
NMaude said:
Since the TEL is a coffin-type launcher wouldn't the Tomahawks being launched be CGM-109 instead of BGM-109 and the SM-6s the CIM-174 instead of BIM-174?
Click to expand...

Coffins were fixed-site, usually semi-hardened launchers. Missiles from mobile ground launchers are either B (for multiple launch environments) or M (for mobile ground launchers). As noted, Gryphon was a BGM. Pershing was an MGM.

And since the goal here is for the missile in canister to be exactly interchangeable with the Navy versions, I will not be shocked if they stay as RGM-109 and RIM-174. Why add separate inventory numbers for identical missiles?
 
TomS said:
And since the goal here is for the missile in canister to be exactly interchangeable with the Navy versions, I will not be shocked if they stay as RGM-109 and RIM-174. Why add separate inventory numbers for identical missiles?
Click to expand...
True, nobody calls Harpoons 'BGM-84s' just because the launcher gets placed on land. Although I wonder whether ownership changes matters - Army vs Navy.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom