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

Forest Green said:
Anyone know the diameter of PrSM or warhead size yet? Ah, answered by own question, or part of it.

View attachment 678250
Click to expand...
I believe the warhead casing is something mildly exotic as well to create more effective fragmentation pattern. They didn't come right out and say it in the literature but I believe it is 3D printed, which allows you to pretty much print your fragments in any size, shape, and orientation and stick them together in one single complex shape with a void in the middle for the HE.
 
TomS said:
We know it's 34.5 inches (0.88m) in diameter, and scaling off the released images suggest it's about 33 ft (10m) long. Weight is ~16,300 lbs (~7,390 kg).
Click to expand...
Scaling off images I only get 7m (280inches) assuming it's in proportion. What image were you using?
 
Forest Green said:
TomS said:
We know it's 34.5 inches (0.88m) in diameter, and scaling off the released images suggest it's about 33 ft (10m) long. Weight is ~16,300 lbs (~7,390 kg).
Click to expand...
Scaling off images I only get 7m (280inches) assuming it's in proportion. What image were you using?
Click to expand...

Yeah, I got that wrong. It's the TEL canister that is apparently 10m long. I'd swear I saw this figure somewhere else, but I guess Global Security will have to do.
https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/lrhw.htm
 
sferrin said:
What image are you using?
Click to expand...
Having now reviewed several images, I would suggest not using them, because they are clearly not to proportion, and I get a different value each time, ranging from 7m to nearly 11m, based on width as 34.5in.

TomS's link is probably best because it specifies the container as 10m, and the cut-out divides that into 12 segments (lines on container), the missile is more than 11 of those, so at least >9m.

1654109619131.png
 
Bruno Anthony said:
stealthflanker said:
bobbymike said:
www.defensenews.com

US Army seeks ways for self-propelled howitzers to fire faster

The Army is tapping small business for ideas on how to increase the rate of fire for self-propelled howitzers.
www.defensenews.com www.defensenews.com
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.
Click to expand...
From 1988. Countering Soviet Fire Support.

 
What's the intended theme of this thread? I believe it originally was intended for topics such as the US Long Range Precision Fires (LRPF) Missile that was to replace the Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS) capability. It seems to have wandered all over the place though with talk of howitzers, SAMs, ABMs, Shipments to Ukraine etc etc. I think a splitting/re-organising this topic is needed.
 
GTX said:
What's the intended theme of this thread? I believe it originally was intended for topics such as the US Long Range Precision Fires (LRPF) Missile that was to replace the Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS) capability. It seems to have wandered all over the place though with talk of howitzers, SAMs, ABMs, Shipments to Ukraine etc etc. I think a splitting/re-organising this topic is needed.
Click to expand...
That’s because many of these systems do not have their own individual threads so everything gets lumped into this thread.
 
Agreed. Long-range Precision Fires is actually a well-defined portfolio of systems but people here cannot seem to start new threads so basically everything Army missile gets stuck here.

For reference, this is what actually belongs in LRPF.

Fires for Effect: 10 Questions about Army Long-Range Precision Fires in the Joint Fight

The United States is faced with peer competitors—China and Russia—seeking to alter the strategic landscape and supplant U.S. influence in key regions.1 Recognizing that they were outmatched militarily by the United States (although the gap is closing), China and Russia focused on developing...
www.ausa.org www.ausa.org

WHAT ARE THE ARMY LRPF SYSTEMS?​

The U.S. Army’s top modernization priority since 2017, LRPF consists of four signature programs being developed under the direction of the Army Futures Command (AFC) cross functional team (CFT) for LRPF. These programs are: Extended-Range Cannon Artillery (ERCA); Precision Strike Missile (PrSM); Strategic Long-Range Cannon (SLRC); and the Long-Range Hypersonic Weapon (LRHW). Other LRPF initiatives include conversion of a Navy Standard Missile (SM)-6 battery by 2023 and Tomahawk missiles to engage moving targets, both on land and at sea, at ranges from 500 to 1500 km.12
Click to expand...
 
I will attempt to split this topic up. It may take a little time though (given there are currently 800 odd posts) so please bear with me.
 
Mods this covers so many disparate systems I don’t know where else to put this?

The UK will send thousands of shells and weapons to Ukraine in the coming weeks as it steps up its support against Russia’s invasion.

Britain will supply Ukraine will 50,000 artillery shells, hundreds of drones and anti-tank weapons, defence secretary Ben Wallace announced in an update to Parliament today.
Click to expand...
More than 20 M109 155mm self-propelled guns and 36 L119 105mm artillery guns will soon arrive from the UK.

Counter-battery radar systems and more than 50,000 rounds of ammunition for Ukraine’s existing Soviet era artillery will also follow, he added.
Click to expand...
www.independent.co.uk

UK to send more artillery guns and hundreds of drones to Ukraine

‘We will ensure Ukraine has the tools to defend their country from Putin’
www.independent.co.uk www.independent.co.uk
 
isayyo2, IMHO there are just too many issues which need to be thought thru before anything can be built, how to power even mixed methods, the mix of missile/muntion etc, costs and complexity in the near term, whether it should be manned given some of the ignition issues a Manhattan Project size effort. DoD is just not ready to commit big cash to thought pieces. Notice the analysis paper has not been released, it may never and classified project emerge. we wont know.

There was a boost glided 155mm yes a 155mm mentioned in AW&ST recently..guns are far from over...missile prices are coming down but they are still expensive one shot wonders.
 
jsport said:
isayyo2, IMHO there are just too many issues which need to be thought thru before anything can be built, how to power even mixed methods, the mix of missile/muntion etc, costs and complexity in the near term, whether it should be manned given some of the ignition issues a Manhattan Project size effort. DoD is just not ready to commit big cash to thought pieces. Notice the analysis paper has not been released, it may never and classified project emerge. we wont know.

There was a boost glided 155mm yes a 155mm mentioned in AW&ST recently..guns are far from over...missile prices are coming down but they are still expensive one shot wonders.
Click to expand...
It would need to be ~300MJ net to push a 50kg round 1,000nm. The muzzle velocity needed would be at least Mach 10 or 3,400m/s and probably have a mid-course rocket boost in space too.
 
Jemiba said:
I'm sure, people can start new threads, so, please, maintain some discipline,
when posting and don't degrade threads to collection folders !
Click to expand...

Fully agreed: it could be as easy as taking a time, look for the best existing thread before posting otherwise consider to open a new thread, but only if the subject of your post deserves a thread.

In my personal opinion, I value the forum for the quality of its contents. A thread made of a mixture general headlines goes out of the core subjects and makes difficult to find information.

This is not a quantitative posting competition.
 
jsport said:
isayyo2, IMHO there are just too many issues which need to be thought thru before anything can be built, how to power even mixed methods, the mix of missile/muntion etc, costs and complexity in the near term, whether it should be manned given some of the ignition issues a Manhattan Project size effort. DoD is just not ready to commit big cash to thought pieces. Notice the analysis paper has not been released, it may never and classified project emerge. we wont know.
Click to expand...
The Super Villain era of weapons procurement is over, for now...
 
sferrin said:
bobbymike said:
www.abqjournal.com

New rocket motor company conducts first NM launch

X-Bow (pronounced 'crossbow') flew its 'Bolt Rocket' at White Sands
www.abqjournal.com www.abqjournal.com
Click to expand...
I wonder what kind of ISP they're getting.
Click to expand...
From the article:
the company decided to produce its own solid-state fuel, creating a new additive-manufacturing process that cuts fuel development to two or three days

Most solid propellant is simply mixed then poured, then cures in place. Easy, no need for fancy manufacturing. However... some propellants have been actually manufactured. Sprint/HiBEX propellant was, at least sometimes, manufactured robotically... zirconium "staples" were placed precisely via robot arms as the layers of propellant were built up. The staples not only burned energetically, the higher thermal conductivity caused the propellant to heat up faster, thus evaporate at the surface faster thus burn faster. Maybe these guys are doing something like that.

Another possibility might be that the propellant isn't cast in place, but manufactured in thin sheets, perforated, then rolled up. A normal sort of solid propellant can be made to burn *really* fast that way.

Alternatively: it's the same old mix/pour/cast process, but with added buzzwords. Shrug.
 
Last edited:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/abq-firms-rocket-motor-tech-190400387.html

The traditional fuel-making procedure begins with a slow mixing of chemicals, which can take up to five days. After that, the mixture is poured into a giant steel casting pit, where it remains for 10-15 days for the ingredients to slowly harden.
Click to expand...

Then, when the solid-state fuel is ready for removal, it gets put through intensive post-inspection. And only after that is the propellant finally shipped onto the last stage of manufacturing, whereby the fuel gets integrated into the rocket motor assembly process itself.
Click to expand...

In contrast, X-Bow's additive manufacturing compresses the entire mixing-and-curing procedure into a three-day process, with all the automated technology installed inside compact shipping containers that X-Bow calls a "Rocket Factory in a Box." In addition, the company has developed proprietary rocket motors that are designed to be integrated with the fuel through a simple, snap-in procedure using cartridges the encapsulate the propellant.
"It's a cartridge-based approach," Hundley said. "We put the energetics (propellant) in the bottom of the rocket motor and screw in the nozzle on the back."
Click to expand...
 
I think it telling that they have (apparently) completely avoided performance aspects.
 
Orionblamblam said:
sferrin said:
bobbymike said:
www.abqjournal.com

New rocket motor company conducts first NM launch

X-Bow (pronounced 'crossbow') flew its 'Bolt Rocket' at White Sands
www.abqjournal.com www.abqjournal.com
Click to expand...
I wonder what kind of ISP they're getting.
Click to expand...
From the article:
the company decided to produce its own solid-state fuel, creating a new additive-manufacturing process that cuts fuel development to two or three days

Most solid propellant is simply mixed then poured, then cures in place. Easy, no need for fancy manufacturing. However... some propellants have been actually manufactured. Sprint/HiBEX propellant was, at least sometimes, manufactured robotically... zirconium "staples" were placed precisely via robot arms as the layers of propellant were built up. The staples not only burned energetically, the higher thermal conductivity caused the propellant to heat up faster, thus evaporate at the surface faster thus burn faster. Maybe these guys are doing something like that.

Another possibility might be that the propellant isn't cast in place, but manufactured in thin sheets, perforated, then rolled up. A normal sort of solid propellant can be made to burn *really* fast that way.

Alternatively: it's the same old mix/pour/cast process, but with added buzzwords. Shrug.
Click to expand...
And that's great as far as geometry goes but what are they using for propellant? Are they pre-casting AP/Al into small grains, like gunpowder, then bonding them all together, a few at a time? That's a lot of adhesive and that's got to affect ISP I'd think.
 
Last edited:
sferrin said:
And that's great as far as geometry goes but what are they using for propellant? Are they pre-casting AP/Al into small grains, like gunpowder, then bonding them all together, a few at a time? That's a lot of adhesive and that's got to affect ISP I'd think.
Click to expand...

You *could*, like some of the Spring/HiBEX motors, use a double-base propellant: basically powdered nitrocellulose (and some other bits), laid down in an even layer. Place your staples on a solid layers. Gently sift in the powdered propellant, enough to cover the staples some. Then mist in nitroglycerin, which dissolves the powder, turning it into sludge that solidifies. Then place more staples, add more powder, mist in my nitroglycerin, rinse, repeat.

Alternatively: use a more conventional/safer composite propellant... AP/AL/Rubber. Lay down a thin flat layer. Let cure and solidify. Place staples, lay down a thin layer of uncured propellant, allow to cure, rinse, repeat. How well a new layer of propellant will bond to an old one might be debatable, but if you only let the previous layer *kinda* cure, enough to be slightly stiffened, it should work.
 
I woudn't expect news articles aimed at a general audioence to even hint at Isp. It's just not of interest.

However, one of X-Bow's projects is the AFRL Rocket Factory in a Box, which basically aims to replicate an AIM-120C-5 motor in a 3-D printed, mostly automated manufacturing process. If that's actually being achieved, it's not necessarily getting the highest possible Isp but not something embarrassingly low either.

But the really neat trick here is being able to go from blank sheet to flyable motor in 3 months. That's insanely fast by modern standards.
 
Last edited:
Orionblamblam said:
sferrin said:
And that's great as far as geometry goes but what are they using for propellant? Are they pre-casting AP/Al into small grains, like gunpowder, then bonding them all together, a few at a time? That's a lot of adhesive and that's got to affect ISP I'd think.
Click to expand...

You *could*, like some of the Spring/HiBEX motors, use a double-base propellant: basically powdered nitrocellulose (and some other bits), laid down in an even layer. Place your staples on a solid layers. Gently sift in the powdered propellant, enough to cover the staples some. Then mist in nitroglycerin, which dissolves the powder, turning it into sludge that solidifies. Then place more staples, add more powder, mist in my nitroglycerin, rinse, repeat.

Alternatively: use a more conventional/safer composite propellant... AP/AL/Rubber. Lay down a thin flat layer. Let cure and solidify. Place staples, lay down a thin layer of uncured propellant, allow to cure, rinse, repeat. How well a new layer of propellant will bond to an old one might be debatable, but if you only let the previous layer *kinda* cure, enough to be slightly stiffened, it should work.
Click to expand...
Like powder-bed printers? Only use something like an inkjet head to deliver the binder/solvent instead of a laser for consolidation?
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom