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

TomS said:
What? No, that article is full of complete no sequiturs and falsehoods.
Click to expand...
Some perhaps but the assessment that the S-400/500 is unlikely to be able to intercept it seems correct. However the maximum intercept altitude for the A235 is incorrectly stated, since it's 50km not >80km, which wouldn't be much use against a glide warhead anyway.
 
Yes, it makes a big difference when I read it slowly rather than scan reading. It's badly written for sure. I think when I was scan-reading it I was making sense of it in my head rather than reading the actual words. Having read the actual words I think I'll file it next to bulgarianmilitary.com in future.

Anyway, launch video:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1867260958801805468
View: https://x.com/JConcilus/status/1867260958801805468

What is the bulge on the righthand side of the missile that sticks out a bit? Datalink antenna?

www.twz.com

Army's Dark Eagle Hypersonic Missile Finally Blasts Out Of Its Launcher

Unspecified problems with the Dark Eagle launcher have already set back plans for the weapon system by years.
www.twz.com www.twz.com

1734105394606.png


PrSM Inc. 1 completes 'successful' LUT; urgent fielding next for new ballistic missile | InsideDefense.com

The Army is poised to seek permission to provisionally field its next-generation, short-range ballistic missile following a key test at White Sands Missile Range, NM, where the service successfully executed a salvo launch of a pair of the first increment of Precision Strike Missiles, a major...
insidedefense.com insidedefense.com

breakingdefense.com

Pentagon marks 2 long-range tests with Army's PrSM and Army-Navy hypersonic missile - Breaking Defense

The US Army recently had 'successful' tests for both its Long-Range Hypersonic Weapon and a pair of Precision Strike Missile (PrSM) Increment 1 weapons.
breakingdefense.com breakingdefense.com
 
Last edited:
New Defense Updates video about the USMC's new NMESIS system:


US Marines from the 3d Marine Littoral Regiment (3d MLR), part of the 3d Marine Division, now have a powerful new weapon in their arsenal. The regiment has received the Navy-Marine Expeditionary Ship Interdiction System (NMESIS), an advanced anti-ship missile system.
Click to expand...
Beyond the menacing name, the NMESIS is designed to boost the Marine Corps’ anti-ship capabilities, particularly for potential conflicts in the Pacific theater, where Marine units would be expected to deploy to several islands throughout the ocean.
Click to expand...
This marks the first deployment of the NMESIS in the field, following years of testing and development. The system will be operated by the regiment's Medium-Range Missile Battery, based in Oahu, Hawaii.
Click to expand...
In this video, Defense Updates analyzes how the US Marine Corps is getting a major capability boost with NMESIS ?
Click to expand...
#defenseupdates #NMESIS #navalstrikemissile
Click to expand...
Chapters:
00:11 INTRODUCTION
01:59 NEMESIS OVERVIEW
03:56 NAVAL STRIKE MISSILE (NSM)
06:43 ANALYSIS
Click to expand...
 
US has awarded BAE a contract to produce a prototype 155mm AA gun battery consisting of 8 cannons, 4 radars, 2 control vehicles utilising the Hypervelocity Projectile ammunition developed for the aborted railgun program. The cannons will be on self propelled wheeled vehicles similar to Archer and the battery should consist of no less than a 144 round capability. The battery is to protect fixed and semi-fixed locations from the full range of aerial threats (drones, fixed wing aircraft, rotary wing aircraft, missiles).

www.twz.com

Railgun Ammo-Firing 155mm Air Defense Cannon Set To Be Awarded To BAE Systems

The Army is looking to demonstrate a novel highly-mobile and lower-cost 155mm air and missile defense system by 2028.
www.twz.com www.twz.com

I think this would be the largest calibre AA gun ever produced and the first large calibre AA gun since the 50's?
 
WatcherZero said:
I think this would be the largest calibre AA gun ever produced and the first large calibre AA gun since the 50's?
Click to expand...

The Soviets did experiment with a 152mm AA gun, and of course there are the various dual-role 6-inch naval guns from the 1940s, but those lose on a 3-mm technicality.

XSAM-N-8 Zeus was fired out of an 8-inch gun, so by some measures that beats out the MDAC for size honors. Though you could definitely argue the 8-inch gun was not really an AA mount.

It is almost certainly true that this would be the first new AA gun design larger than 130mm to reach production since the 1950s. Assuming it actually does reach production.
 
WatcherZero said:
US has awarded BAE a contract to produce a prototype 155mm AA gun battery consisting of 8 cannons, 4 radars, 2 control vehicles utilising the Hypervelocity Projectile ammunition developed for the aborted railgun program. The cannons will be on self propelled wheeled vehicles similar to Archer and the battery should consist of no less than a 144 round capability. The battery is to protect fixed and semi-fixed locations from the full range of aerial threats (drones, fixed wing aircraft, rotary wing aircraft, missiles).

www.twz.com

Railgun Ammo-Firing 155mm Air Defense Cannon Set To Be Awarded To BAE Systems

The Army is looking to demonstrate a novel highly-mobile and lower-cost 155mm air and missile defense system by 2028.
www.twz.com www.twz.com

I think this would be the largest calibre AA gun ever produced and the first large calibre AA gun since the 50's?
Click to expand...

Since ever, unless you’re counting battleship main guns with very rarely used anti aircraft munitions (ETA: I want to say the IJN made some rounds like this that were almost never used?). I cannot recall dedicated or even dual use AA over 152mm/6”, and even that is limited to some cruisers of questionable AA value. The WWII USN 5” seems to be the outstanding example of effectiveness in that caliber range.
 
Josh_TN said:
Since ever, unless you’re counting battleship main guns with very rarely used anti aircraft munitions (ETA: I want to say the IJN made some rounds like this that were almost never used?). I cannot recall dedicated or even dual use AA over 152mm/6”, and even that is limited to some cruisers of questionable AA value.
Click to expand...
Just the 8" Zeus round, which was only in testing and not deployed.



Josh_TN said:
The WWII USN 5” seems to be the outstanding example of effectiveness in that caliber range.
Click to expand...
The US 6"/47 automatics on the Worcester class CLs were pretty mean. 12x 6"/47s (6x2), plus 24x 3"/50s (11x2, 2x1). 12 rpm per gun, so 144 rounds per minute of 105lb HE with mechanical or RF prox fuzes.
 
Firefinder said:
The USN 203mm on the Des Moines were the biggest duel purpose gun that reach service and apperant murder targets scary fast and far for their time.
Click to expand...
I'm still irked that the 8" Mk71 guns weren't adopted... And today it'd be interesting to see what would happen if someone stuck a 155mm extreme low drag projectile into a sabot for 8" bore.
 
jsport said:
southfront.org

A Look Into U.S. Army's Tactical Intelligence Targeting Access Node (TITAN)

The US Department of Defense presented the concept of an integrated reconnaissance and target designation system in the theater of...
southfront.org southfront.org
Click to expand...
More on that:

TITAN prototyping phase will include more variants for more vehicles | InsideDefense.com

The original plan was to build two versions of the Tactical Intelligence Targeting Access Node (TITAN): five advanced and five basic, and each would look exactly the same, respectively. But after discussions over the past year, and the arrival of its first advanced prototype Dec. 18, the Army is...
insidedefense.com insidedefense.com
 
I really do not see what this automation brings to the table outside very modest manpower reductions
 
Its a great way to "thicken the force" as the Army likes to call it. Add additional autonomous launchers to the already existing force structure in a shorter amount of time compared to growing the force structure for manned capability. Survivability is also an element that is appealing. A similar footprint can deploy more launchers and fires. Growing force structure to support additional manned launchers strains logistics and defense systems in ways autonomous launchers do not (or so is the belief).

Scott Kenny said:
100th "major end item"

That does not sound like the 100th C&C node or whatever... Doesn't even look like a radar array!
Click to expand...
There are no radars or launchers in the A-IAMD modernization program (those are seperate efforts under LTAMDS and Sentinel A4). Major end items include the IBCS Engagement Operations Centers (pictured below), IFCN relays (pictured in the post above), Plug and Fight kits that connect existing PATRIOT and non PATRIOT (Sentinel A3) sensors and fire units into IAMD, and a a few additional items (ICE tents and equipment etc). There use to be a remote interceptor guidance 360 (RIG 360) kit part of the IAMD major end item but it got carved out as a separate independent effort. That is a missile communication antenna hardware that allows IAMD to communicate directly to the PAC-3 MSE interceptor (and in the future AIM-9X) without the PATRIOT radar in the loop.

1738772574524.png
 
Last edited:
Forest Green said:
Considerable reductions in labour, logistics and training costs, plus less risk to lives. It's like CCA for MLRS.
Click to expand...

We are talking about two operators per vehicle. Logistics wise it still needs gas and rockets, so the only thing you are removing is water for the two dudes. If you look up the composition of a fire battery, the drivers of the Himars trucks are not even the majority of the drivers, let alone the manpower of the battery. I really want you to quantify the “considerable“ in that post.
 
Josh_TN said:
We are talking about two operators per vehicle. Logistics wise it still needs gas and rockets, so the only thing you are removing is water for the two dudes. If you look up the composition of a fire battery, the drivers of the Himars trucks are not even the majority of the drivers, let alone the manpower of the battery. I really want you to quantify the “considerable“ in that post.
Click to expand...
Water, food, training and wages.
 
Forest Green said:
Water, food, training and wages.
Click to expand...

Of course, but is 18 people per battery a sufficient cost offset for the development and cost of the program? If you still need the BOC and logistics, is this a labor saving mechanism and can it perform with the same reliability as people?
 
Josh_TN said:
Since ever, unless you’re counting battleship main guns with very rarely used anti aircraft munitions (ETA: I want to say the IJN made some rounds like this that were almost never used?). I cannot recall dedicated or even dual use AA over 152mm/6”, and even that is limited to some cruisers of questionable AA value.
Click to expand...
Bit late replying, but you're thinking of the IJN's Sankaidan phosphorus rounds, which Musashi used at the Battle of the Sibuyuan Sea, with little effect beyond taking out one of its own guns and giving the US pilots a nice fireworks display. (People keep calling it shrapnel, but the nature of the beast seems more like cannister to me)

The RN's County Class heavy cruisers could technically fire their 8" Mk VIII in twin Mk I* or II turrets to +70 degrees, but they didn't have the rate of fire, or rate of train, for it to be useful and the Mark II* reverted to +50 degrees. All RN 6" mounts had a theoretical AA capability with 45 or 60 degree elevation, but in practise they couldn't train fast enough, so were used under control of a barrage director - aim for a patch of sky and fire at the appropriate time for the shells to arrive alongside the target.
 
Forest Green said:
CCAs are a similar thing, and everybody has decided that it is in that case.
Click to expand...

Pilots are a couple orders of magnitude harder to produce than truck drivers. And removing the pilot and pilot interfaces has far more impact than removing the cab on a truck.

If the automation works reliably I see no hard in it, but cost savings over just using manned launchers seems extremely marginal.
 
Josh_TN said:
Pilots are a couple orders of magnitude harder to produce than truck drivers. And removing the pilot and pilot interfaces has far more impact than removing the cab on a truck.

If the automation works reliably I see no hard in it, but cost savings over just using manned launchers seems extremely marginal.
Click to expand...
Is it just a truck driver though? Do they not also operate the missile launcher?
 
Forest Green said:
Is it just a truck driver though? Do they not also operate the missile launcher?
Click to expand...

I suspect one of the two crewmen if not both have a different MOS that is much more challenging than a truck drivers. I also think that compared to a pilot they are still dime a dozen.
 
Forest Green said:

Army's TF STRIKE to test LRHW and MRC's ability to dis-integrate adversary defenses | InsideDefense.com

The Army is looking to begin as soon as 2026 to start coordinated testing of its newest deep strike systems to assess the ability of the Long-Range Hypersonic Weapon and the Mid-Range Capability to dis-integrate complex defense systems in the opening salvos of a major fight against an adversary...
insidedefense.com insidedefense.com
Click to expand...

I can't read the article, but it's equally absurd & hilarious that we've spent so many years & oodles of money to build a YUGE fleet of stealth aircraft only to turn around & give the job of dismantling air defenses to stuff like ATACMS, The PRSM, & other long-range surface-to-surface missiles while The F-35 essentially just stands around & watches the action unfold after passing along the coordinates of the target.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eay2yotwFD0


Not sure as to how The PRSM will be able to hit the radars of, say, a SAM site in a GPS-denied environment unless they opt to turn it into an air launched ballistic HARM like Israel's ROCKS.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom