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

jsport said:
warontherocks.com

The Need to Invest in Long-Range Fires - War on the Rocks

If a naval aviator quotes from the movie Top Gun in the wardroom, they are going to have to buy a round of beers for the squadron. We are prepared to be
warontherocks.com
Click to expand...
That's a Navy article, not Army.

Talking about arming the P-8 fleet with LRASMs etc, since the pylons can carry over 2000lbs each. Edit: wouldn't it be ironic if the only hypersonic shooters in the USN ended up being the P-8? :D
 
jsport said:
www.defensenews.com

What's needed for integrated fires?

Army leaders explain what capabilities will be necessary for the Defense Department's goal of integrated fires.
www.defensenews.com www.defensenews.com

"hyperactive and high volumn threat"
they know w/o SLRC w. RPM they will be overmatched overrun etc.
Click to expand...
nothing has changed if ur one shot wonder missiles are expended ur done.. no slrc no win.
 
TomS said:
Per the Twitter thread, it already has been.

However, this document has an interesting statement that there is NO LRIP for PrSM. Sort of sounds like they are procuring quite a few for "test and evaluation" then transitioning straight to FRP.

Click to expand...
Each Early Operational Capability production lot is essentially the LRIP phase of the program. EOC 1 is being delivered now, EOC 2 from next year.
 
bring_it_on said:
Each Early Operational Capability production lot is essentially the LRIP phase of the program. EOC 1 is being delivered now, EOC 2 from next year.
Click to expand...
It's interesting. They used to call it, "Emergency Capability" when they were getting something into service ASAP.
 
sferrin said:
I'd think not at all. Ukraine isn't getting them.
Click to expand...
But the more PrSMs the US gets, the more ATACMS can be sent to Ukraine.



sferrin said:
It's interesting. They used to call it, "Emergency Capability" when they were getting something into service ASAP.
Click to expand...
Early Operational Capability may be a different contracting protocol than Emergency Capability.
 
Scott Kenny said:
But the more PrSMs the US gets, the more ATACMS can be sent to Ukraine.




Early Operational Capability may be a different contracting protocol than Emergency Capability.
Click to expand...
One would assume that that would be highly dependent on the plan and schedule (and how they've performed against it) for upgrading HIMARS and M270's for PrSM. ATACMS is available to 100% of the FA launchers at the moment. PrSM perhaps to less than a dozen test launchers. I think the Army is running behind on its original software development plan.
 
NMaude said:
That's not what I meant, more PrSM's sooner means that more MGM-140s can be released to Ukraine.

This!
Click to expand...

That presumes that the limiting factor is how many the US has in inventory. I think once the decision was made to let lose with cluster munitions, that opened up a lot of ATACMs that the US didn't plan on using anyway. Technically the US never agreed to the cluster munition ban; practically I think it doesn't deploy/train with cluster type munitions any more. Also while PrSM would have more overlap with unitary warhead ATACMs, that wouldn't necessarily mean it is a one for one replacement: ATACMs would have a larger HE warhead and might be more suitable for some target types. From what I understand, while PrSM does have a superior fragmentation pattern from what I assume is a 3D printed preformed frag case, it is still a 200lb class warhead which is about what a standard HIMARS rocket is. Given that at least some of the ATACMs fleet was recently refurbished, I suspect a number of those missiles are reserved for US use only.
 
Josh_TN said:
I think once the decision was made to let lose with cluster munitions, that opened up a lot of ATACMs that the US didn't plan on using anyway.
Click to expand...
I hear this argument a lot. Honestly, how does one determine the impact in Army's planning of knowing something that exists with an ability to be brought back if in a pinch? Surely the Army will consider that as it makes its trades in which systems to invest in??
 
bring_it_on said:
I hear this argument a lot. Honestly, how does one determine the impact in Army's planning of knowing something that exists with an ability to be brought back if in a pinch? Surely the Army will consider that as it makes its trades in which systems to invest in??
Click to expand...
I think that the big problem with US cluster warheads was the sheer number of duds that ensued. Much higher than anyone expected, IIRC.

So while the US wasn't willing to sign that treaty banning them, since we were stuck in COIN/occupation fights for the last 30+ years (Desert Storm 1991 and on) it was good policy to limit the use of cluster munitions in places where we're going to have troops for decades.

And if the gloves come off you can still dig the old stuff out of the arsenals for use.
 
The first production qualification test flight has been successful, from Defense Updates:


The deployment of the new Precision Strike Missile (PrSM) by the US Army getting closer following a "successful" short-range test conducted this week at White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico. Both the service and the prime contractor - Lockheed Martin have confirmed this development.
Click to expand...
The US Army revealed that the weapon was launched for its first production qualification test flight from the M142 High Mobility Artillery Rocket System (HIMARS).
Click to expand...
The service wrote :
Click to expand...
“Preliminary results from the test show the Precision Strike Missile Increment 1 missile performed nominally in terms of predicted flight trajectory, lethality, near-vertical engagement angle, and height of burst. A final flight test report is anticipated in December 2023.”
Click to expand...
 
Scott Kenny said:
I think that the big problem with US cluster warheads was the sheer number of duds that ensued. Much higher than anyone expected, IIRC.

So while the US wasn't willing to sign that treaty banning them, since we were stuck in COIN/occupation fights for the last 30+ years (Desert Storm 1991 and on) it was good policy to limit the use of cluster munitions in places where we're going to have troops for decades.

And if the gloves come off you can still dig the old stuff out of the arsenals for use.
Click to expand...
The max dud rate for US cluster munitions hover below 5 percent of them per weapon. Seen everywhere from 1 percent to 3 percent depending on generation. Which may not sound like alot but 2.5 percent of 100 is still 3 of the things.

With the vast majority being collision induced duds not manufacturing.

Basically on release due to the witch craft of aerodynamics some of the submunitions WILL slam into each other at Jesus Measurements per second.

At those speeds damage is inevitable and more often then not. It was the Fuze being damaged. Resulting in duding. With them having a habit of going off when you try to remove them.

Before... Obama I believe put a stop order on new clusters, the military was looking to tricks that basically made them biodegradable. Basically after x amount of time after release it become chemically inert.

Heard that the performance in Ukraine have renewed interest in that...
 
Firefinder said:
The max dud rate for US cluster munitions hover below 5 percent of them per weapon. Seen everywhere from 1 percent to 3 percent depending on generation. Which may not sound like alot but 2.5 percent of 100 is still 3 of the things.
Click to expand...
And when the typical MLRS strike is 12 rocket times 644 warheads per rocket, that's some 240 duds per strike at 3% duds...
 
What are the odds that the war in Ukraine has accelerated the US DoD's PrSM production plans?
 
breakingdefense.com

Lockheed begins delivering long-range PrSM Increment 1 to Army - Breaking Defense

"The delivery of Precision Strike Missile Increment 1 early operational capability missiles follows successful production qualification testing in November," the service wrote in a short statement.
breakingdefense.com breakingdefense.com

The service also tapped a Lockheed team and a Raytheon Technologies-Northrop Grumman team this year to work on competing PrSM Inc 4 designs that can fly more than 1,000 km, possibly double the range of the current version.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
bobbymike said:
Click to expand...

Range of the Dark Eagle keeps increasing.
Also known as the Strategic Mid-Range Fires System, its Tomahawk and SM-6 missiles cover the range gap of 310 to 1,800 miles between the MDTF’s Precision Strike Missile and Dark Eagle Long-Range Hypersonic Weapon
Click to expand...

Mind you, some places are saying 3,000km now.

1705663304838.png

1705663315201.png
1705663329256.png
 
Last edited:
bring_it_on said:
PrSM had a range requirement of 499 km since this was what the Army could get cleared given INF and the type of weapon being proposed. Subsequently, we exited INF and since then the range of the baseline system has been stated as 500+km with some putting it at 550 km when it enters service. Future increment of this capability addresses longer, up to 2x the range, capability. Baseline capability stands on its own merit and will be very useful when it enters service this Fall. The Army has an objective inventory requirement of about 4,000 increment 1 missiles. 2X increase in range brings in additional capability to the MDTF in the 2030s especially when combined with other LRPF effects being envisioned for it.
Click to expand...
MDTF layout:


1705748429952.png
1705748454209.png
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom