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

[Josh_TN]

I wonder how much of that $8 million is motor cost and if they could get the price down by lowering structural requirements because of the less demanding flight profile.

I would assume a lot of cost savings could be had by simply removing all the electronics required for SAM, ABM, and network NIFCA purposes. Using SM-6 for a ground target is kinda like using a Porche SUV for a demolition derby.

 

[Forest Green]

I don’t see how any of that is possible; the warhead on PrSM is tiny compared to ATACMs.

You could sacrifice range for payload depending on the purpose, targeted long range strike or assault breaking.

 

[Josh_TN]

You could sacrifice range for payload depending on the purpose, targeted long range strike or assault breaking.

Sure, but at some point can’t you just individually target a 227mm rocket? Or the follow on? The PrSM platform seems geared for tactical ballistic missile delivery on a small delivery truck sized platform. But I do not think that scales well to sub munitions.

 

[NMaude]

I wonder how much of that $8 million is motor cost and if they could get the price down by lowering structural requirements because of the less demanding flight profile.

I would think that the most expensive part of the SM-6 would be its' GCU electronics.

 

[Seragina]

By rule of thumb for cost : missile > rocket > artillery shell.
It would be cheaper to mount a smart artillery shell on a rocket. Preferable a airbreathing hypersonic shell. That would cut cost a lot. The arty/cannon guys who need it the most would bnefit the most, too.