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

It seems to me there is every reason to have ground based alternatives to medium range targets in an anti access environment. Though exactly how you deconflict an effort that would involve Army and USAF assets attacking the same target set I think will be a challenging organizational problem.
 
Josh_TN said:
It seems to me there is every reason to have ground based alternatives to medium range targets in an anti access environment. Though exactly how you deconflict an effort that would involve Army and USAF assets attacking the same target set I think will be a challenging organizational problem.
Click to expand...

CEC
 
Josh_TN said:
It seems to me there is every reason to have ground based alternatives to medium range targets in an anti access environment. Though exactly how you deconflict an effort that would involve Army and USAF assets attacking the same target set I think will be a challenging organizational problem.
Click to expand...
joint integrated prioritized target list-it is about half a century old.
JADCC even further automates and is being made more intelligent by the day.
 
From Inside Defense pay site


Army seeks nearly $24M to boost Long Range Precision Fires munitions projects
The Army is looking to increase funding this summer for a trio of munitions projects for the service's top modernization priority -- the Extended Range Cannon Artillery system, including bolstering funds for an effort that seeks to satisfy U.S. Army Pacific Command's desire for a Multi-Domain Cannon Artillery capability.
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
Paladin can now fire over 80km there is no counterbattery threat to 'shoot and scoot' 155mm anymore.

The new radical fire control capability and autoloader will allow so much independance it may define the latest M-109 as almost a "new tank" much like the indepentant Crusader was planned to be.

As a family of APS evolves beyond rudimentary systems like Trophy there will be little threat to Paladin when equipped w updated APS.
 
Last edited:
jsport said:
Paladin can now fire over 80km there is no counterbattery threat to 'shoot and scoot' 155mm anymore.

The new radical fire control capability and autoloader will allow so much independance it may define the latest M-109 as almost a "new tank" much like the indepentant Crusader was planned to be.

As a family of APS evolves beyond rudimentary systems like Trophy there will be little threat to Paladin when equipped w updated APS.
Click to expand...
Paladin can now fire over 80km ?
 
seruriermarshal said:
jsport said:
Paladin can now fire over 80km there is no counterbattery threat to 'shoot and scoot' 155mm anymore.

The new radical fire control capability and autoloader will allow so much independance it may define the latest M-109 as almost a "new tank" much like the indepentant Crusader was planned to be.

As a family of APS evolves beyond rudimentary systems like Trophy there will be little threat to Paladin when equipped w updated APS.
Click to expand...
Paladin can now fire over 80km ?
Click to expand...

I'm assuming he means ERCA with HVP.
 
Looking at these future long range surface to surface missiles, is it a far stretch to envision the USAF, USN, USMC, and affiliate allies to consider "RAMPAGE style" applications, similar to Israeli endeavors of adapting SSMs into long range rapid response air to surface weapons...?
 
sferrin said:
https://twitter.com/x/status/1243240405459664905

https://www.defensenews.com/smr/arm...n-exits-precision-strike-missile-competition/
"And the service plans to extend the range of the PrSM missile so there are opportunities for competition there “and we would welcome Raytheon as an important competitor,” Rafferty said, adding Raytheon’s design features a compelling propulsion system, which fundamentally differs from Lockheed’s design and could be considered down the road. "

Hmmmm.

View attachment 631163
Click to expand...


Aerospike engine, or a variation of it?
 
DanielStarseer said:
sferrin said:
https://twitter.com/x/status/1243240405459664905

https://www.defensenews.com/smr/arm...n-exits-precision-strike-missile-competition/
"And the service plans to extend the range of the PrSM missile so there are opportunities for competition there “and we would welcome Raytheon as an important competitor,” Rafferty said, adding Raytheon’s design features a compelling propulsion system, which fundamentally differs from Lockheed’s design and could be considered down the road. "

Hmmmm.

View attachment 631163
Click to expand...


Aerospike engine, or a variation of it?
Click to expand...
Aerospike is the future but rotating detonation (not deflagation) is also the future. ..guess you could not combine them.
 
DanielStarseer said:
Looking at these future long range surface to surface missiles, is it a far stretch to envision the USAF, USN, USMC, and affiliate allies to consider "RAMPAGE style" applications, similar to Israeli endeavors of adapting SSMs into long range rapid response air to surface weapons...?
Click to expand...

PrSM seems like a candidate for such. Most of the other weapons are in a very different weight class that would put them out of practical tactical aircraft carriage.
 
DanielStarseer said:
sferrin said:
https://twitter.com/x/status/1243240405459664905

https://www.defensenews.com/smr/arm...n-exits-precision-strike-missile-competition/
"And the service plans to extend the range of the PrSM missile so there are opportunities for competition there “and we would welcome Raytheon as an important competitor,” Rafferty said, adding Raytheon’s design features a compelling propulsion system, which fundamentally differs from Lockheed’s design and could be considered down the road. "

Hmmmm.

View attachment 631163
Click to expand...


Aerospike engine, or a variation of it?
Click to expand...

Not really. Aerospike comes into its own when you are looking at space launch, where getting the expansion ratio adjusted to the altitude can really pay off. But aerospikes are still burning (deflagrating) fuel. RDE is its own thing, with detonating rather than deflagrating combustion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotating_detonation_engine
 
stealthflanker said:
bobbymike said:
https://www.defensenews.com/land/20...VM1hDLifS1hAgOj3m2-cBpsPqOcw-TBZOVxhpgvAAYTdI
Click to expand...

Which makes me wonder.. why they cancel Crussader in the first place.
Click to expand...

Because the USArmy since the end of the Cold War and worse during/after WoT has no real idea what it wants/needs with its vehicle programs. Therefore it’s an endless series of upgrades to current systems and restating needs that are never met through programs that are never fulfilled. The improved artillery needs have been around since the mid 80s as a response to increasing WarPac artillery capabilities. They periodically repeat those needs like they are newly discovered.
 
stealthflanker said:
Which makes me wonder.. why they cancel Crussader in the first place.
Click to expand...
I don't think the US ever missed the Crusader. The use of artillery was so low in the years following that they ended up as dead branch walking. The money would have been better spent on winning the wars that was actually fought and 'not-won.'

Given the slow development of "peers", there is time to start an artillery program if the needs shows itself.
 
shin_getter said:
stealthflanker said:
Which makes me wonder.. why they cancel Crussader in the first place.
Click to expand...
I don't think the US ever missed the Crusader. The use of artillery was so low in the years following that they ended up as dead branch walking. The money would have been better spent on winning the wars that was actually fought and 'not-won.'

Given the slow development of "peers", there is time to start an artillery program if the needs shows itself.
Click to expand...

Amazes me that playing catch-up after the fact is considered a sensible policy, as opposed to getting ahead and setting the standard.
 
I don't think it was a sensible policy but it was understandably a low priority at the time. I do wonder why they haven't gone back to the crusader design though; it seems to me everything was largely finalized and would give the Army what it wants in a howitzer. That said, while the link above mentions improving rate of fire as a goal, it seems to be less about the absolute rate of fire of the gun and more about the prep time required for getting a shell ready to be employed...ie, the contract is more concerned with sustained rate of fire rather that ToT rapid fire. We can debate the wisdom of that of course; it seems to me there are a lot of advantages in destructive fire in the first seconds of a barrage. But recently what the Army seems more concerned with is range, not RoF.
 
Josh_TN said:
I don't think it was a sensible policy but it was understandably a low priority at the time. I do wonder why they haven't gone back to the crusader design though; it seems to me everything was largely finalized and would give the Army what it wants in a howitzer. That said, while the link above mentions improving rate of fire as a goal, it seems to be less about the absolute rate of fire of the gun and more about the prep time required for getting a shell ready to be employed...ie, the contract is more concerned with sustained rate of fire rather that ToT rapid fire. We can debate the wisdom of that of course; it seems to me there are a lot of advantages in destructive fire in the first seconds of a barrage. But recently what the Army seems more concerned with is range, not RoF.
Click to expand...
Let’s not forget low priority at time of massive force and budget cuts. The so called peace dividend is still being felt 30 years later.
 
shin_getter said:
Given the slow development of "peers", there is time to start an artillery program if the needs shows itself.
Click to expand...

Yeah and now they are basically trying to reinvent the wheel with XM-1299. This would easily add years which could be saved by having Crussader in operation.


Josh_TN said:
But recently what the Army seems more concerned with is range, not RoF.
Click to expand...

Yeah and if Crussader did happen... The only thing would happen is longer barrel not a basically new SPH.
 
The USArmy has in btw the lines said that long range missiles and some super gun are the priority. Sounds like hitting pin point targets vs dropping heavy fire support. But yes why couldn’t Crusader w/a longer gun(like the current ERCA program and PGMs) have done that just as well?

Band aids on top of belly wounds. The Army got lost back in the 90s and then totally disappeared down a cave from 2001-2012. Kind of found a reason to live with the PRC focus but thinks that it will take a radically differently equipped force. Of course Crusader would’ve made some changes easier now.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom