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

isayyo2 said:
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...
Click to expand...
..personally beleive the PRC has not abandoned super guns.
 
www.navalnews.com

Precision Strike Missile (PrSM) Information Update - Naval News

One of the greatest advantages of the U.S. Army's Precision Strike Missile PrSM is that it can hit moving land and maritime targets using a multi-mode seeker.
www.navalnews.com www.navalnews.com

:D
The Lockheed Martin PrSM has an objective range of 60 to 650 kilometers (37 to 403 miles) and two PrSMs can fit inside a M142 High-Mobility Artillery Rocket System HIMARS, double the number compared to the MGM-140 Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS) with the later having a range of 190 miles (305 kilometers).
Click to expand...

I'm thinking the peak speed must be around Mach 5 or more to reach that range.

1659795624940.png


For speculative discussion purposes, PrSM on HIMARS can operate in tandem with the new Navy Marine Expeditionary Ship Interdiction System (NMESIS). NMESIS carries two stealthy 100 nautical miles (114 miles/185 kilometers) Naval Strike Missiles (NSM) on an unmanned 4×4 Joint Light Tactical Vehicle (JLTV) truck that can be sling-loaded by a USMC CH-53K “King Stallion” helicopter for more austere field conditions, mobility, and flexibility. M142 HIMARS (and the unmanned AML) can be transported internally via Marine KC-130J “Hercules” military cargo aircraft and thus requires a landing strip.
Click to expand...

Combined, NMESIS with NSM, and HIMARS with PrSM, can form the foundational basis for the USMC’s LBASM deterrent. (Also note that the M142 HIMARS can also be outfitted with special racks for AIM-120 AMRAAMs for a forward surface-to-air missile Air Defense option, but the USMC has yet to field this option although there was a test firing of an AIM-120 from a HIMARS in March 2009).
Click to expand...

www.navalnews.com

Land-Based Anti-Ship Missiles and the U.S. Marine Corps: Options Available - Naval News

Peter Ong reports on the Land-Based Anti-Ship Missile (LBASM) options on the table for the USMC and US Army ground forces to use against threatening enemy ships, with the latest from Virtual Modern Day Marine Expo 2020.
www.navalnews.com www.navalnews.com

1659796077450.png
 
Last edited:
The Marines will not be launching AIM-120's from their HIMARS any time soon or probably ever. They don't field organic fire control radars to make this work hence the transition to Iron Dome for their MRC program so logical advancement for them would be to field David's sling to build around that. Not to mention that the HIMARS would be an awfully expensive AMRAAM shooter. They are likely to however not ask for much beyond Iron Dome as they don't have the budgets to field much beyond that capability and keeping these systems C130 deployable make this quite expensive for longer ranged systems. The USMC also does not seem to have much of an investment around LBASM so not sure that it is going to do anything outside of waiting for the Army run S&T program to deliver the seeker for the next increment of PrSM.

PrSM has a range of around 550 km. Not sure where the objective of 650 km is sourced from but I would love to see that. Subsequent increments will increase that possibly to 1K km but those are S&T efforts and we will have to see them transition to serious programs with proper funding if they want to field that by 2028-2030.
 
Last edited:
bring_it_on said:
The Marines will not be launching AIM-120's from their HIMARS any time soon or probably ever. They don't field organic fire control radars to make this work hence the transition to Iron Dome for their MRC program so logical advancement for them would be to field David's sling to build around that. They are likely to however not ask for much beyond Iron Dome as they don't have the budgets to field much beyond that capability and keeping these systems C130 deployable make this quite expensive for longer ranged systems. The USMC also does not seem to have much of an investment around LBASM so not sure that it is going to do anything outside of waiting for the Army run S&T program to deliver the seeker for the next increment of PrSM.

PrSM has a range of around 550 km. Not sure where the objective of 650 km is sourced from but I would love to see that. Subsequent increments will increase that possibly to 1K km but those are S&T efforts and we will have to see them transition to serious programs with proper funding if they want to field that by 2028-2030.
Click to expand...
Says for a future version but it was also mentioned here. Could be a typo though.

Pentagon budget 2022: US Army caps future PrSM range at 650 km

Future iterations of the US Army’s Precision Strike Missile (PrSM) could reach targets out to 650 km, according to new budget documents that seemingly cap the weapon’s...
www.janes.com www.janes.com

It seems it'll be hitting enemy forces before they walk into the recruitment office.
 
They are funding several technologies for upcoming increments that focus on range extension. Amongst them, some of the more promising areas can even double the range. But those increments have not been codified into formal requirements that are publicly available. More recent statements made after this article was published suggest range will likely be b/w 800 and 1000 km.
 
breakingdefense.com

First live rounds of Army's hypersonic weapon coming in 'roughly' 6 months - Breaking Defense

Soldiers are already training on the hypersonic battery equipment to prepare for delivery of the missile.
breakingdefense.com breakingdefense.com

The LRHW, which can fly at least 1,725 miles, is part of the Army’s long-range fires modernization priority, along with the Precision Strike Missile, Extended Range Cannon Artillery and Mid-Range Capability.
Click to expand...

Sounds like range has gone from 1,400+nm to 1,500+nm.
 
Forest Green said:
breakingdefense.com

First live rounds of Army's hypersonic weapon coming in 'roughly' 6 months - Breaking Defense

Soldiers are already training on the hypersonic battery equipment to prepare for delivery of the missile.
breakingdefense.com breakingdefense.com

The LRHW, which can fly at least 1,725 miles, is part of the Army’s long-range fires modernization priority, along with the Precision Strike Missile, Extended Range Cannon Artillery and Mid-Range Capability.
Click to expand...

Sounds like range has gone from 1,400+nm to 1,500+nm.
Click to expand...

I think the range of any glider is kinda squishy. The absolute upper limit is presumably when the glider departs from controlled flight, but I would assume the projectile is no longer hypersonic well before that. In fact I'd assume it would remain fairly stable through the sub sonic regime, at least with a simple biconical glider like in LRHW. In the 2017 test, the glider reportedly flew ~2200 miles in less than 30 minutes (I believe the launcher was a Polaris type booster). That works out to an average speed of Mach 6, but a huge amount of that figure would be the super high speed at initial release, with drag rapidly slowing the glider down there after. It seems likely the terminal speed in that test was technically sub hypersonic (though almost definitely still supersonic). The 1725 mile figure that was announced seems tailor specified to put Taiwan in range of Guam while still excluding the mainland.
 
Josh_TN said:
I think the range of any glider is kinda squishy. The absolute upper limit is presumably when the glider departs from controlled flight, but I would assume the projectile is no longer hypersonic well before that. In fact I'd assume it would remain fairly stable through the sub sonic regime, at least with a simple biconical glider like in LRHW. In the 2017 test, the glider reportedly flew ~2200 miles in less than 30 minutes (I believe the launcher was a Polaris type booster). That works out to an average speed of Mach 6, but a huge amount of that figure would be the super high speed at initial release, with drag rapidly slowing the glider down there after. It seems likely the terminal speed in that test was technically sub hypersonic (though almost definitely still supersonic). The 1725 mile figure that was announced seems tailor specified to put Taiwan in range of Guam while still excluding the mainland.
Click to expand...
Possibly, who knows. If you remove the bulkhead between the first two bays of a B1, you could probably fit 4 inside and launch from 50-60kft. How far would it go then?
 
I've no idea, but that seems more like something that would be done with ARRW, not LRHW. Personally I don't think the USAF will spend a dime making any updates or mods to B-1s...it's to be replaced before the B-2s.
 
Josh_TN said:
I've no idea, but that seems more like something that would be done with ARRW, not LRHW. Personally I don't think the USAF will spend a dime making any updates or mods to B-1s...it's to be replaced before the B-2s.
Click to expand...
How long did they say something similar about the B-52s? Removing the bulkhead would be relatively easy as it was designed to be removable from the getgo. (Don't know if they had to modify it for START.)
 
sferrin said:
Josh_TN said:
I've no idea, but that seems more like something that would be done with ARRW, not LRHW. Personally I don't think the USAF will spend a dime making any updates or mods to B-1s...it's to be replaced before the B-2s.
Click to expand...
How long did they say something similar about the B-52s? Removing the bulkhead would be relatively easy as it was designed to be removable from the getgo. (Don't know if they had to modify it for START.)
Click to expand...
They already done the mods.

There is an article either here a few page back, one of the OTHER Hypersonic threads or the B1 thread about the air force saying that its still a maintainer level deal to remove the bulkhead.
 
sferrin said:
Josh_TN said:
I've no idea, but that seems more like something that would be done with ARRW, not LRHW. Personally I don't think the USAF will spend a dime making any updates or mods to B-1s...it's to be replaced before the B-2s.
Click to expand...
How long did they say something similar about the B-52s? Removing the bulkhead would be relatively easy as it was designed to be removable from the getgo. (Don't know if they had to modify it for START.)
Click to expand...
The B-52s didn't have structural issues.

There was a B-1 with a mock up of a hypersonic missile internally mounted, which presumably involved moving the bulkhead. According to this article, the bulkhead can be moved relatively quickly:

www.businessinsider.com

The Air Force showed off how it could equip the B-1B Lancer with more bombs — including hypersonic weapons

Expanded carrying capacity means the Lancer can not only hold more weapons but heavier weapons, like hypersonics, as well.
www.businessinsider.com www.businessinsider.com

What I suspect would be a lot more effort (and perhaps more importantly money) is weapons integration changes and testing. Given how expensive ARRW is, I can't see the money being spent on test rounds for B-1 mods. As it is I think it will be bought in small batch quantities as a bridge to HACM, which probably fills too similar of a niche for both weapons to be in large scale production. By the time HACM is online, the B-1s will be leaving service.
 
Josh_TN said:
sferrin said:
Josh_TN said:
I've no idea, but that seems more like something that would be done with ARRW, not LRHW. Personally I don't think the USAF will spend a dime making any updates or mods to B-1s...it's to be replaced before the B-2s.
Click to expand...
How long did they say something similar about the B-52s? Removing the bulkhead would be relatively easy as it was designed to be removable from the getgo. (Don't know if they had to modify it for START.)
Click to expand...
The B-52s didn't have structural issues.

There was a B-1 with a mock up of a hypersonic missile internally mounted, which presumably involved moving the bulkhead. According to this article, the bulkhead can be moved relatively quickly:
Click to expand...
Don't reed too much into a PEM created photo shoot on the test bird at ED. Moving the bulkhead isn't too much more work than changing out the CSRL for a CEM. The problem is there aren't long CSRL's for the Bones, guess if they ask nicely the BUFF PEM would let them use theirs. Then the short bay tanks are all trash by now. When I was at DY '02-'05 they'd been sitting outside for a decade, another 20 years in the TX sun can't be good. The bird is sunsetting, don't see them spending that kind of money.

@sferrin no mods for START, just an official wooden measuring stick for the inspection. Watched the Russians do that in '05, curious how they seemed to pick the Taste of Abilene weekend to inspect DY. Got a couple of cool trinkets for the I love me wall out of that.
 
Forest Green said:
Possibly, who knows. If you remove the bulkhead between the first two bays of a B1, you could probably fit 4 inside and launch from 50-60kft. How far would it go then?
Click to expand...
How pray tell does an aircraft that can barely make a level turn in the mid to high 20's with a meaningful load ever climb above 40kft? Maybe almost empty and supersonic, but the bay doors are limited to .94M so no weapons release supersonic. That number around out because I conducted a JDAM test at the limit. The turn chart is in the -1, which is floating around the interwebs...
 
mkellytx said:
How pray tell does an aircraft that can barely make a level turn in the mid to high 20's with a meaningful load ever climb above 40kft? Maybe almost empty and supersonic, but the bay doors are limited to .94M so no weapons release supersonic. That number around out because I conducted a JDAM test at the limit. The turn chart is in the -1, which is floating around the interwebs...
Click to expand...
Zoom climb on afterburner? B-1R version gets made? :)
 
Forest Green said:
mkellytx said:
How pray tell does an aircraft that can barely make a level turn in the mid to high 20's with a meaningful load ever climb above 40kft? Maybe almost empty and supersonic, but the bay doors are limited to .94M so no weapons release supersonic. That number around out because I conducted a JDAM test at the limit. The turn chart is in the -1, which is floating around the interwebs...
Click to expand...
Zoom climb on afterburner? B-1R version gets made? :)
Click to expand...
Replace F101s with F135s. :D (Probably kill range though.)
 
sferrin said:
Forest Green said:
Zoom climb on afterburner? B-1R version gets made? :)
Click to expand...
Replace F101s with F135s. :D (Probably kill range though.)
Click to expand...
They would fit, they put out at least as much thrust dry as the F101 does wet. Depending on use range might actually improve. At the end of the day though the Bone is on the way out and by the time any of the hypersonic weapons hit the fleet Raiders will be replacing Bones at EL and DY.
 
Forest Green said:
Laser-guided version of Excalibur being fielded?

https://twitter.com/x/status/1561209840348938241
View: https://twitter.com/UkraineNewsLive/status/1561209840348938241?s=20&t=v95N9WQeTv170854gJ2TsA
Click to expand...

Just because the news source posted a video of Excalibur S does not mean that is the version of the round being delivered. The source video for that happens to be in the top three Google video searches for "Excalibur 155mm" and is probably the most photogenic. But I can't find any reporting that the S has been procured by the US military or anyone else.
 
Forest Green said:
bobbymike said:

Rings of Fire: A Conventional Missile Strategy for a Post-INF Treaty World | CSBA

CSBA is an independent, non-partisan policy research institute established to promote innovative thinking and debate about national security strategy and investment options.
csbaonline.org csbaonline.org
Click to expand...
They seem to be quoting the SM-6 as a 500km range surface strike weapon for the army.
Click to expand...

I’d assume it’s farther than that, or else it would be redundant with PrSM.
 
Josh_TN said:
Forest Green said:
bobbymike said:

Rings of Fire: A Conventional Missile Strategy for a Post-INF Treaty World | CSBA

CSBA is an independent, non-partisan policy research institute established to promote innovative thinking and debate about national security strategy and investment options.
csbaonline.org csbaonline.org
Click to expand...
They seem to be quoting the SM-6 as a 500km range surface strike weapon for the army.
Click to expand...

I’d assume it’s farther than that, or else it would be redundant with PrSM.
Click to expand...
I seem to recall reading that an early, inert, SM-3 3rd stage landed something like 500+ MILES down range.
 
sferrin said:
Josh_TN said:
Forest Green said:
bobbymike said:

Rings of Fire: A Conventional Missile Strategy for a Post-INF Treaty World | CSBA

CSBA is an independent, non-partisan policy research institute established to promote innovative thinking and debate about national security strategy and investment options.
csbaonline.org csbaonline.org
Click to expand...
They seem to be quoting the SM-6 as a 500km range surface strike weapon for the army.
Click to expand...

I’d assume it’s farther than that, or else it would be redundant with PrSM.
Click to expand...
I seem to recall reading that an early, inert, SM-3 3rd stage landed something like 500+ MILES down range.
Click to expand...
The original “Arclight” DARPA SM-3 surface to surface program had as its target 2000km albeit only a 50lbs warhead
 
bobbymike said:
sferrin said:
Josh_TN said:
Forest Green said:
bobbymike said:

Rings of Fire: A Conventional Missile Strategy for a Post-INF Treaty World | CSBA

CSBA is an independent, non-partisan policy research institute established to promote innovative thinking and debate about national security strategy and investment options.
csbaonline.org csbaonline.org
Click to expand...
They seem to be quoting the SM-6 as a 500km range surface strike weapon for the army.
Click to expand...

I’d assume it’s farther than that, or else it would be redundant with PrSM.
Click to expand...
I seem to recall reading that an early, inert, SM-3 3rd stage landed something like 500+ MILES down range.
Click to expand...
The original “Arclight” DARPA SM-3 surface to surface program had as its target 2000km albeit only a 50lbs warhead
Click to expand...
As I recall it was intended to achieve this by being a boost-glider.
 
bobbymike said:
The original “Arclight” DARPA SM-3 surface to surface program had as its target 2000km albeit only a 50lbs warhead
Click to expand...

Do you have a link for details on the project as this is the first I've heard of it?

On another note how close is the PrSM to entering the LRIP phase? And how have the events in Ukraine effected the past of the programme?
 
NMaude said:
bobbymike said:
The original “Arclight” DARPA SM-3 surface to surface program had as its target 2000km albeit only a 50lbs warhead
Click to expand...

Do you have a link for details on the project as this is the first I've heard of it?

On another note how close is the PrSM to entering the LRIP phase? And how have the events in Ukraine effected the past of the programme?
Click to expand...
LRIP has been funded. So probably already in product.
 
Given how things are starting to heat up in Ukraine I wonder if we'll some of the LRIP rounds covertly tested there?
 
NMaude said:
Given how things are starting to heat up in Ukraine I wonder if we'll some of the LRIP rounds covertly tested there?
Click to expand...

I'd say basically zero chance.

For starters, the schedule as of the beginning of this year called for LRIP to begin in 2023.

Northrop Grumman advances PrSM rocket motor testing

Northrop Grumman has completed a further static qualification test of its advanced rocket motor design for the US Army's prospective Precision Strike Missile (PrSM)...
www.janes.com

Beyond that, LRIP test launches should occur on instrumented ranges and controlled conditions to make sure the actual test objectives can be achieved and measured.

Ukraine is an uncontrolled environment, the system would be operated by non-US troops, the outcomes would be difficult to measure, and there would be a near certainty that some bits will be recoverable by the Russian military even after a successful test. A failed test or battlefield reverse could deliver the Russians a complete weapon. No thanks.
 
Josh_TN said:
NMaude said:
Given how things are starting to heat up in Ukraine I wonder if we'll some of the LRIP rounds covertly tested there?
Click to expand...
If the US isn't giving them ATACMs they surely won't give them PrSM.
Click to expand...

I have a sneaking suspicion that Ukraine will get the ATACMS in the new future (No doubt Ukrainian M142 launch crew have been covertly trained how to fire it).
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom