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

bring_it_on said:
PrSM had a range requirement of 499 km since this was what the Army could get cleared given INF and the type of weapon being proposed. Subsequently, we exited INF and since then the range of the baseline system has been stated as 500+km with some putting it at 550 km when it enters service. Future increment of this capability addresses longer, up to 2x the range, capability. Baseline capability stands on its own merit and will be very useful when it enters service this Fall. The Army has an objective inventory requirement of about 4,000 increment 1 missiles. 2X increase in range brings in additional capability to the MDTF in the 2030s especially when combined with other LRPF effects being envisioned for it.
Click to expand...
MDTF layout:


1705748429952.png
1705748454209.png
 
jsport said:
www.c4isrnet.com

To win battles of information, the US Army will need deep sensing and data handling

The service wants to use sensors to "see" across the larger distances expected for future battles. And deeper sensing makes more data to process and understand.
www.c4isrnet.com www.c4isrnet.com
Click to expand...
breakingdefense.com

Going long: Army to unveil new 'deep sensing' cross-functional team - Breaking Defense

In the meantime, the service anticipates the return of delayed Dark Eagle hypersonic testing this summer, acquisition chief Doug Bush said.
breakingdefense.com breakingdefense.com
 
bobbymike said:
www.twz.com

Army Gets 120mm 'Nemo' Mortar Turret Toting Armed Vehicle Prototype

An armored vehicle with the Finnish NEMO mortar turret is a major capability boost over anything in the Army's inventory today.
www.twz.com www.twz.com
Click to expand...

en.wikipedia.org

2R2M mortar - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

Also, I have yet to see what the NEMO could offer, aside from the fire rate, that could be a major improvement to the US Army's artillery force. The main constraint is range and networking. AFATDS and new shells would solve this.

Now if they could get to trial a containerized NEMO system and then move up to an UGV hull it could be a major improvement. Mass fielding new unmanned SPGs would some alot of the back pain problem.
www.twz.com

This 120MM Gun Built Into A Shipping Container Is Pretty Damn Genius

Need a close-in surface defense system that can also be a gun turret to defend your land base? You're in luck!
www.twz.com www.twz.com
 
asVAL said:
Also, I have yet to see what the NEMO could offer, aside from the fire rate, that could be a major improvement to the US Army's artillery force.
Click to expand...
Fire rate
Overhead protection
Crew reduction
Direct fire capability

Now if they could get to trial a containerized NEMO system and then move up to an UGV hull it could be a major improvement.
Click to expand...
Containerized NEMO on a crew-optional platform or UGV sounds quite enticing!
 
bobbymike said:
www.defensenews.com

US Army scraps Extended Range Cannon Artillery prototype effort

The Army is changing directions in its effort to field a long-range cannon, scrapping its 58-caliber prototype in favor of considering available systems.
www.defensenews.com www.defensenews.com
Click to expand...

Unsurprising. Barrel life was reportedly abysmal. I wonder if it won’t make more sense to replace the existing M109A7 barrels with something slightly longer and leave it at that? The newer ammunition types would also extend range. Let HIMARS do the rest.

Alternatively just buy the ROK/Polish systems off the shelf if a longer range, higher RoF system is required at the artillery brigade level.
 
Josh_TN said:
Unsurprising. Barrel life was reportedly abysmal. I wonder if it won’t make more sense to replace the existing M109A7 barrels with something slightly longer and leave it at that? The newer ammunition types would also extend range. Let HIMARS do the rest.

Alternatively just buy the ROK/Polish systems off the shelf if a longer range, higher RoF system is required at the artillery brigade level.
Click to expand...

If that AGM/Donar turret can fit on a Boxer, surely it can fit on an M109 chassis. Or maybe standardize on the MLRS chassis.
 
Rheinmetall and BAE have recently demonstrated M109-52, a M109 with PZH2000's gun. Combined with the ramjet and/or subcaliber ER projectiles, there's a much MUCH more affordable path now for stretching Army howitzer ranges.
 
Moose said:
Rheinmetall and BAE have recently demonstrated M109-52, a M109 with PZH2000's gun. Combined with the ramjet and/or subcaliber ER projectiles, there's a much MUCH more affordable path now for stretching Army howitzer ranges.
Click to expand...

I thought I remembered that. Probably the most likely option.
 
TomS said:
If that AGM/Donar turret can fit on a Boxer, surely it can fit on an M109 chassis. Or maybe standardize on the MLRS chassis.
Click to expand...

A7 version is a Bradly chassis/engine already I believe, so same I think as M270.
 
52 caliber barrel seems like an easy drop in that would increase performance somewhat but avoid the high cost and barrel wear of the ERCAs supercharges.
 
Josh_TN said:
A7 version is a Bradly chassis/engine already I believe, so same I think as M270.
Click to expand...

Engine, transmission, and tracks grafted into the existing M109 hull. So yes, most of the bits that actually need replacement or maintenance regularly. Not sure if the suspension is also Bradley, which would be the last major part that isn't unique to the howitzer.
 
Last edited:
sferrin said:
Of course they did. Business as usual.
Click to expand...

It did not work and filled no useful role.

EDIT: to expand on the above, not only was barrel life rather hopeless low* (re: it did not work), I suspect the experience in the Ukraine changed what the US Army is looking for in a corps level artillery platform. Two things come to mind: ERCA had no auto loader, so it was still a step backward when compared to most of the donated SPHs used in Ukraine. Also at the ranges that ERCA would be used, a tracked platform is probably a liability: the HIMARS units are much more mobile over long distances than a tracked unit. So if the US Army really wants independent artillery brigades for deep strikes, a road mobile platform with a higher rate of fire is probably superior even with reduced range.

*I think one article I read indicated in the low to mid hundreds of rounds
 
Last edited:
Lc89 said:
Well, I guess it won't be a problem for Bae Systems/Rheinmetall to turn an L52 into an L58, or am I wrong?
Click to expand...
Ze Germans have looked at an L60 with a huge supercharge already, I don't know how far down the development track they've gone. But they've already demonstrated over 65km with the L52, combined with the ramjet or hypervelocity round that's already a massive step up. And, unlike the limited buy planned for ERCA, the M109-52 could potentially become an upgrade for the majority of the Army's units.
 
Moose said:
Ze Germans have looked at an L60 with a huge supercharge already, I don't know how far down the development track they've gone. But they've already demonstrated over 65km with the L52, combined with the ramjet or hypervelocity round that's already a massive step up. And, unlike the limited buy planned for ERCA, the M109-52 could potentially become an upgrade for the majority of the Army's units.
Click to expand...
Especially if the 52cal barrel needs no other changes (or only needs a new counterweight behind the trunnions). Swap in the long barrel when the next tube replacement is scheduled to occur.
 
Moose said:
Ze Germans have looked at an L60 with a huge supercharge already, I don't know how far down the development track they've gone. But they've already demonstrated over 65km with the L52, combined with the ramjet or hypervelocity round that's already a massive step up. And, unlike the limited buy planned for ERCA, the M109-52 could potentially become an upgrade for the majority of the Army's units.
Click to expand...

I am not disagreeing.

But also, this army request is about corps level, not every howitzer. So a lot of options might be possible.
 
Josh_TN said:
I am not disagreeing.

But also, this army request is about corps level, not every howitzer. So a lot of options might be possible.
Click to expand...
The Erca wasnt every howitzer either.

If you took the time to look at the plan lay out of the ERCA you see there was only to be 1 battery of ERCA per 2-4, division type depending, for the older 39 cal.

The ERCA was to be the unit's long range swing hitter focus on counterfires and priority targets you cant wait for other types like Tac Air or MLRS to roll up to hit. The 39 cal guns would continue to be the main workhorse general do alls as they are.

And speaking as a former counterfire radar operator and specialist that division of responsibility is sorely needed ability. Cause theres so many situations were a FDC has to decide which mission to exacute due to priorities its not funny.
Do you take out the enemy radars or target the supply dump? Or maybe a line unit has a no shit need for support while another being hammer by arty themselves? Or maybe you find out that the general is at an location just in range? Or all of the above?

Thats not the type of issue where having more guns would not fix. Thats due to basically the old saying of, If all you have is a hammer, being in effect.
Having a clear line of responsibility hammer in by capabilities is the best fix for that.

As is the current 52 cal guns do have a barrel wear issue themselves when going for max ranges. Something like 1200 to the 39 3000 to the ERCA 800-900.

When you trying to punt a full size shell at near Tank APFSDS speeds, expect that type of wear.
 
Yes, that was point: the requirement is more corps level / independent artillery brigade or else extra battery for a select few heavy divisions. It would not have be an M-109 based solution.
 
bobbymike said:
Add a zero
Click to expand...
scrap the niche to purposeless boost glide missiles (too small number and expensive to justify most targets out there. not to mention entire new training and logistical chain) and use that money to buy even more proven missiles that already fit in our current doctrine. No single country on earth can handle a mass attack by what's in our arsenal now or near future so just buy more.
 
donnage99 said:
scrap the niche to purposeless boost glide missiles (too small number and expensive to justify most targets out there. not to mention entire new training and logistical chain) and use that money to buy even more proven missiles that already fit in our current doctrine. No single country on earth can handle a mass attack by what's in our arsenal now or near future so just buy more.
Click to expand...
I don't think a PrSM is a boost-glider. Well, not a hypersonic BGV like on ARRW, just the typical Pershing-1 level of Mach 5-8 as it climbs and then it drops ballistically after burn-out.
 
Scott Kenny said:
I don't think a PrSM is a boost-glider. Well, not a hypersonic BGV like on ARRW, just the typical Pershing-1 level of Mach 5-8 as it climbs and then it drops ballistically after burn-out.
Click to expand...

I believe what he is saying is that boost/glide missiles are too expensive for what capability they provide and that shorter ranged aeroballistic missiles provide much better value.
 
Josh_TN said:
I believe what he is saying is that boost/glide missiles are too expensive for what capability they provide and that shorter ranged aeroballistic missiles provide much better value.
Click to expand...
Considering that we can get working BGVs right now and air-breathing hypersonics don't seem to be working so well, I'd rather get a small number of BGVs as the temporary solution till the air breathers are working.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom