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

sferrin said:
"new XM1113 rocket-boosted shell and a longer howitzer 58 caliber cannon increases range from 38km to 70km+."

Apparently the ancient G6 is still king. And they didn't even have to use a rocket-boosted shell.

"Rheinmetall attained a distance of 76km using a G6 howitzer with a 52-calibre gun. This is said to be the longest range ever achieved with a conventional 155mm artillery round."

(I was stoked the article above was going to show the mythical 1000-mile gun.)
Click to expand...
so was I
155mm developments are about 2 decades of just catching up.
 
these are not new missiles are they ? They are based on BMD target missiles which never ended production yea?
 
jsport said:
these are not new missiles are they ? They are based on BMD target missiles which never ended production yea?
Click to expand...

No way man. We're WAY ahead of everybody else in hypersonics. Clearly a near-production vehicle. /sarc

(Probably sacrificed a target vehicle meant for THAAD or SM-3 for this political test. And I doubt anybody is fooled.)
 
mobile.reuters.com

U.S. Army plans to expand Asian security efforts to counter China

The U.S. Army plans to deploy two specialised task forces to the Pacific capable of conducting information, electronic, cyber and missile operations against Beijing, a Pentagon official said on Friday.
mobile.reuters.com mobile.reuters.com

The task force, likely to be based on islands east of the Philippines and Taiwan, would be equipped to hit land and sea-based targets with long-range precision weapons, such as hypersonic missiles, in a bid to possibly clear the way for Navy vessels in the event of a conflict, Bloomberg said.
 
Moose said:
Tweet containing a couple more.
https://twitter.com/x/status/1230962661086486529
The first words that popped into my head upon looking at the model were "Gerald Bull."
Click to expand...
defence-blog.com

U.S. Army leaks images of its new super cannon

The U.S. Army appears to have accidentally revealed the first image of the newest Strategic Long Range Cannon in a set of presentation material revealed during US-UK Modernization Demonstration Event. The Linkedin post was shared by the U.S. Army CCDC Army Research Laboratory, said that the U.S...
defence-blog.com defence-blog.com
 
What does "four platforms per battery" mean? Does it refer to its support vehicles or other cannons? And then I wonder how one could load shells into the cannon? I suppose there is another truck with a semi-trailer carrying shells and charges, similar to the M992 of the M109 howitzer. And that the Oshkosh M1070 truck is uncoupled from the trailer when the cannon is in use, to facilitate its loading.
 
1582404251216.png


www.thedrive.com

Yes, This Is A Ramjet Powered Artillery Shell And It Could Be A Game Changer

The new round could dramatically extend the range of existing guns and significantly expand the flexibility of even small artillery units.
www.thedrive.com www.thedrive.com

"Norway's Nammo has unveiled a potentially revolutionary concept for an air-breathing, ramjet-powered, pseudo-missile that any standard 155mm howitzer can fire at targets more than 60 miles away. The U.S. Army has already expressed an interest in just such a projectile, which could also end up in service with the U.S. Marine Corps, and the round might finally offer a way for the U.S. Navy to make use of the cannons on its new, stealthy Zumwalt-class destroyers.
The defense contractor revealed a full-size mockup of the design, which it is simply calling the 155mm Solid Fuel Ramjet at present, at the biennial Eurosatory arms expo in the French capital Paris, which began on June 11, 2018. The firm expects to begin live-fire testing of the projectile in 2019 or 2020 and hopes to have the new ammunition in production and in operational service with a military by between 2023 and 2024."

Anyone have the size dimensions for this 1000 mile cannon?
 
Lc89 said:
What does "four platforms per battery" mean? Does it refer to its support vehicles or other cannons? And then I wonder how one could load shells into the cannon? I suppose there is another truck with a semi-trailer carrying shells and charges, similar to the M992 of the M109 howitzer. And that the Oshkosh M1070 truck is uncoupled from the trailer when the cannon is in use, to facilitate its loading.
Click to expand...
I'm speculating, but the weapon plus detachable wheel carriages plus tractor probably equals one platform. 8 crew would only be 1 more than an M109, and I'm assuming the ammo for this thing is a bit larger, so it's not outside the ballpark. I certainly would assume they have separate ammo vehicles planned.

I doubt we'll see much in the way of dimensions, unless someone leaks or blathers on Twitter, before they at least have a functional prototype firing.
 
Diet ATACMS. It seems like a very clear family resemblance in the tail area especially.
 
Slap a Mk72 on it and jam it in a Mk41 VLS. (Actually you could almost certainly stick a Harpoon booster on it and stick in in those canisters as well.)
 
Doesn't the SM-6 IB essentially get you that and perhaps more given that you are unlikely to load more than one PrSM per cell?
 
I think it will look attractive once they develop the multi domain capability and extend the range. Until then, the Navy will probably prefer the longer range and multi-mission nature of the SM-6 family. Once the baseline PrsM begins reaching 700-900 km, and gets the ability to strike ships and other moving targets I'm sure the Navy will have a look.
 
sferrin said:
bring_it_on said:
Doesn't the SM-6 IB essentially get you that and perhaps more given that you are unlikely to load more than one PrSM per cell?
Click to expand...
Probably costs a whole lot more.
Click to expand...

"A whole lot more" is right. SM-6 is in the $5 million ballpark. ATACMS is just under $1 million, and PrSM is supposed to be cheaper than that. Granted, adding a booster will add some expense, but not that much. (My choice might be the VL ASROC booster, which is big and apparently pretty cheap.)

Now, the anti-ship PrSM might be a fair bit pricier than the baseline version, since it needs a seeker of some sort, but ieven that should still be several times less expensive than an SM-6.
 
How do you value the SM-6? Why would it be just the cost of the missile? Why wouldn't it be the fact that it can meet multiple mission needs and provides the flexibility given VLS real estate comes at a premium? I think a direct for direct swap may be more justifiable when we have those optionally/unmanned large vehicles/missile carriers that can provide volume fires. That said, a maritime strike extended range PrSM probably won't become a reality till the late 2020's/early 2030's so the Navy can always look at its options then.
 
bring_it_on said:
How do you value the SM-6? Why would it be just the cost of the missile? Why wouldn't it be the fact that it can meet multiple mission needs and provides the flexibility given VLS real estate comes at a premium? I think a direct for direct swap may be more justifiable when we have those optionally/unmanned large vehicles/missile carriers that can provide volume fires. That said, a maritime strike extended range PrSM probably won't become a reality till the late 2020's/early 2030's so the Navy can always look at its options then.
Click to expand...

The Navy has historically had trouble filling all its VLS cells, not the other way around. I really doubt that has fundamentally changed. Expensive missiles like SM-6 will likely remain fairly low-density assets, with a significant need remaining for low-cost supplements.
 
How can PrSM be a low cost supplement when the SM-6 is a multi-mission/purpose missile? The SM-6 allows them to fill those VL cells with a system that can accomplish more than one mission and intercept more than on type of target. I think that is quite cost effective if one looks at the larger picture of offense and defense. I do agree a $1.5-2 MM (that'll probably be what a multi-domain ER variant of the PrSM will cost) is a good bet if you have empty VLS that you can't afford to fill or when you have the large displacement unmanned vessels that will come in at a lower price point. Unless it turns out to be quite superior in an anti-ship role, I don't see the Navy being interested against land threats unless we at least double the baseline range (probably more).
 
The problem boils down to a 'pennywise, pound foolish' approach which means missiles will remain expensive because the Navy doesn't buy near enough of them for their ships, never mind ammunition reserves.
 
Can an MK72 rocket not be put on a PRSM to make it fly further? After updating and improving it, you might try something like this. Obviously it'd have taken larger trucks as transport and launch platforms.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom