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.

 

[Sferrin]

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.

 

[NMaude]

It would be interesting to see a variant of GLSDB that uses the rocket-motor and tail-control section of an Increment 1 PrSM as a launch booster for the SDB and at 17" in diameter you could probably pack four of them inside a clam-shell fairing that has the same profile as a norm PrSM.

 

[Forest Green]

It would be interesting to see a variant of GLSDB that uses the rocket-motor and tail-control section of an Increment 1 PrSM as a launch booster for the SDB and at 17" in diameter you could probably pack four of them inside a clam-shell fairing that has the same profile as a norm PrSM.

You could but it would weigh 1,000lb, which is 5x standard warhead size. Possible but with reduced range.

 

[NMaude]

You could but it would weigh 1,000lb, which is 5x standard warhead size.

True, however:

Possible but with reduced range.

The PrSM Inc.1 has a range of 310 miles while the SDBI has a range 69 miles if air-launched 93 miles if launched as a GLSDB while the SDBII has an air launched range of 69 miles, I have no doubt that such a proposed load out would be of similar range. A single SDB as a payload would fly considerably further and I wonder if a GBU-62 JDAM-ER could be fitted onto a PrSM rocket-motor/tail-section assembly if encapsulated?

 

[bring_it_on]

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.

From what I can tell, its due to the new rocket motor, faster speed pushing to newer materials etc. The baseline SM-6 is 3.5 Million or roughly double the cost of PrSM so if they took the expensive guidance section requirements out that would probably save some weight. Right now, the TLAM shooting MRIC offers very little in terms of survivable time sensitive strike capability and has a huge footprint that is going to be a problem in the Pacific (General Flynn highlighted this giving feedback from recent deployments last year). If it can launch a 1000-1500 km MRBM that might make it a lot more useful. Alternatively, they could also launch cheaper payloads from the LRHW launchers.