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

Scott Kenny said:
You could have simply answered the question the first time.

"No, haven't seen a designation in any open literature."

Takes 10 seconds.
Click to expand...

I don't take the time to answer every question I don't have an answer to. Do you?

Especially when he asks the same question over and over again. He asks basically every time PrSM gets mentioned.
 
TomS said:
I don't take the time to answer every question I don't have an answer to. Do you?

Especially when he asks the same question over and over again. He asks basically every time PrSM gets mentioned.
Click to expand...
Every question? No.

One that's on my mind as well? Yes.

But I'm starting to suspect that PrSM will never get an official MDS designation, nor an M-series number. Just like THAAD.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Every question? No.

One that's on my mind as well? Yes.

But I'm starting to suspect that PrSM will never get an official MDS designation, nor an M-series number. Just like THAAD.
Click to expand...

THAAD has at least a MDS-like number.
 
TomS said:
THAAD has at least a MDS-like number.
Click to expand...

Maybe, from @Andreas Parsch's THAAD article:

Designation Note: No confirmed formal alphanumeric designation for the THAAD missile is known. While there are a few isolated references in Army logistics and training files to a "Guided Missile, Intercept-Aerial, THAAD MIM-401" and "Guided missile sub-system, intercept-aerial MIM-401B" (and -401C), it is far from certain, that the MDS designator MIM-401 has really been officially allocated to THAAD. The number 401 would be way out of sequence, and DOD MDS records up until January 2024 don't include any MIM-401 designation. Also, the number is suspiciously close to XM400, the official Army nomenclature for the Patriot PAC-3 MSE missile. It cannot be ruled out, that the THAAD missile was to be designated (X)M401, and that this was somehow semi-officially converted to MIM-401, to look like a regular guided missile MDS.
Click to expand...

If the THAAD has an actual MDS designation then the US Army has been rather coy about it.

Now as to what the PrSM's MDS designation would be, well it would start with "MGM" so perhaps something like the MGM-188A (Following the AGM-187A JAGM-F) or if out of sequence, say, MGM-261A (Following the AIM-260A JATM) or the MGM-402A (Following the alleged THAAD MDS designator MIM-401A).
 
When I'm quoted, I'm tempted to reply ;) ...

NMaude said:
If the THAAD has an actual MDS designation then the US Army has been rather coy about it.
Click to expand...
I very much doubt that "MIM-401" has gone through the (official) process of MDS allocation. But the Army being "coy about" a designation is not unusual. I know several MDS, which are allocated for the Army but which I have never seen anywhere except in DOD's nomenclature list.

NMaude said:
Now as to what the PrSM's MDS designation would be, [...]
Click to expand...
This speculation is relatively pointless. Most likely, the Army is not going to have an MDS allocated at all (because otherwise, they would already have done so quite a while ago).
 
bobbymike said:
defensescoop.com

Army to sole-source deal for hypervelocity projectiles, drone-killing artillery cannon

The Army intends to award prototyping agreements to BAE Systems for multi-domain artillery cannon and hypervelocity projectiles to shoot down drones and other airborne threats.
defensescoop.com defensescoop.com
Click to expand...
breakingdefense.com

Army, Navy experimentation efforts foreshadow second wind for Hypervelocity Projectile - Breaking Defense

Both services view the projectile as a potential defense against unmanned aerial drone threats on land or at sea.
breakingdefense.com breakingdefense.com
 
Last edited:

Oshkosh showcases first ROGUE-Fires with multiple launch rocket system | InsideDefense.com

Oshkosh is pitching a variant of its Marine Corps unmanned expeditionary vehicle to the Army at the service's Global Force Symposium in Huntsville, AL, fitting a multiple launch rocket system on the autonomous weapons launcher for the first time.
insidedefense.com insidedefense.com

www.defensenews.com

Oshkosh Defense unveils new variant of Marine remote fires vehicle

Oshkosh Defense's ROGUE-Fires features multilaunch capabilities for payload-agnostic delivery.
www.defensenews.com www.defensenews.com
 
Last edited:

Contracts For March 28, 2025​

ARMY
Lockheed Martin Corp., Grand Prairie, Texas, was awarded a $4,937,045,400 firm-fixed-price contract for the Precision Strike Missiles Increment One. Bids were solicited via the internet with one received. Work locations and funding will be determined with each order, with an estimated completion date of March 30, 2030. Army Contracting Command, Redstone Arsenal, Alabama, is the contracting activity (W31P4Q-25-D-0010).
 
Trying to figure out how many missiles this is for, and how much of this is strictly for procurement.

From a 2023 MSAR (https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/...n_Reports/FY_2023_SARS/PrSM_MSAR_Dec_2023.pdf)

3986 units to be procured at an average unit cost of $1.390M each
Click to expand...

If we assume this is the unit cost of today's award, and that today's award is purely for procurement, that gets us 3,551 units. "Work to be completed by 2030" implies production rates of over 700 per year.

I wasn't expecting an award of this size. This FY25 budget request only requested about $670M for 2025 for PRSM. https://comptroller.defense.gov/Portals/45/Documents/defbudget/FY2025/FY2025_Weapons.pdf
 
I wonder how many LRIP Increment 1 rounds have been produced so far?
 
joshjosh said:
Trying to figure out how many missiles this is for, and how much of this is strictly for procurement.

From a 2023 MSAR (https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/...n_Reports/FY_2023_SARS/PrSM_MSAR_Dec_2023.pdf)



If we assume this is the unit cost of today's award, and that today's award is purely for procurement, that gets us 3,551 units. "Work to be completed by 2030" implies production rates of over 700 per year.

I wasn't expecting an award of this size. This FY25 budget request only requested about $670M for 2025 for PRSM. https://comptroller.defense.gov/Portals/45/Documents/defbudget/FY2025/FY2025_Weapons.pdf
Click to expand...

Pretty sure I read somewhere else that production was going to be ~180/year after a single year of LRIP at about half that rate. Not sure where though…good chance it was pages ago in this thread though.

ETA:

Googles AI seems to think a rate of 400/year is intended after a $120 million contract for the production lines expansion.
 
Josh_TN said:
Pretty sure I read somewhere else that production was going to be ~180/year after a single year of LRIP at about half that rate. Not sure where though…good chance it was pages ago in this thread though.

ETA:

Googles AI seems to think a rate of 400/year is intended after a $120 million contract for the production lines expansion.
Click to expand...

Based on today's contract award, combined with projected costs of R&D, build rates must be drastically higher than 180 per year.

If we assume that today's award is for 900 units (180 per year times 5 years), then only $1.2B of the award would be for procurement, and the rest ($3.7B) for RDT&E. But RDT&E is only supposed to be about $1B.

Instead, if we assume
  • that all RDT&E has been covered by previous contract awards
  • that this $4.9B award is only for procurement
  • that the cost per AUR is $1.7M (after inflation-adjusting the $1.39M cost target in 2021 dollars)
Then we get a total production of 2904 missiles, at a build rate of 580 per year, given that work is to be completed by 2030.

If we adjust the cost per AUR to the contract threshold of $1.529M per (2021 dollars), $1.865M per (2025 dollars), we get a total production of 2647 AUR, 529 per year.

With a procurement target of 3986 total increment 1 units, both the lower and upper estimates are less than the program target. With a total program target cost of $6.7B in 2025 dollars, $4.9B of that being awarded today, and some other amounts being previously awarded, I'm not sure how much funding is left to procure the rest of the missiles. I'm also not sure how many rounds have been delivered so far.
 
I've also found this chart of expected missile procurement numbers from the SAR. I'm sure these reports are completely legible and non-contradictory for someone who understands how to read them, but for me they are not. I'm also not sure if I have the total program cost correct, as there are conflicting numbers in the doc.

1743220659747.png
 
joshjosh said:
Based on today's contract award, combined with projected costs of R&D, build rates must be drastically higher than 180 per year.

If we assume that today's award is for 900 units (180 per year times 5 years), then only $1.2B of the award would be for procurement, and the rest ($3.7B) for RDT&E. But RDT&E is only supposed to be about $1B.
Click to expand...

It was an IDIQ award announcement. The quantity on IDIQ contracts is not stated and is contingent on annual funding. The Army will exercise annual buys during this period consistent with its budget allocation for each of those years. If over the next five years, the Army exceeds PrSM funding of $5Bn it would need too negotiate and award another contract to LM. But that's unlikely as there isn't enough room in its budget to do so. Recall, the 2020/21 IDIQ award with a ceiling of $60+ Billion to Lockheed Martin for F-16's. This obviously did not mean that the Air Force ordered $60 Bn worth of FMS F-16 block 70's, only that that's what it negotiated and will place orders within that contract as they come in without needing to negotiate fresh contracts each time (up to the ceiling amount).
 
Defense Updates has an update about the deployment of Mk-70 Typhoon launchers to the Phillipines:


In a significant military move, the United States has deployed the Typhon Missile System to Luzon Island in the northern Philippines.
The US shifted the Typhon missile system to the country in April 2024 as part of the joint Salaknib and Balikatan exercises.
That marked the first such missile platform to enter the region.The system has since remained in the country and its stay has now been extended indefinitely.
Reports indicate that the Philippine military is even considering permanently acquiring the system, a move that could significantly shift the balance of power in the Asia-Pacific.
This drew strong reactions from the Chinese government, which has claimed the stationing "creates tensions and antagonism in the region."
Click to expand...
In this video, Defense Updates analyzes why the deployment of American Typhon System in the Philippines is unsettling news for China?
#defenseupdates #usvschina #uschinaconflict
Click to expand...
Chapters:
0:00 TITLE
00:11 INTRODUCTION
01:41 TYPHON WEAPONS SYSTEM
02:42 SM-6 MISSILE
04:41 TOMAHAWK MISSILE
06:11 ANALYSIS
Click to expand...

The Phillipines is looking at acquiring some of these systems which predictably led to this extremely hypocritical response from the PRC:

This drew strong reactions from the Chinese government, which has claimed the stationing "creates tensions and antagonism in the region."
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
I think the reason the PRC really hates this system is because it potentially could be used as a long range counter air asset, on top of bombardment and anti ship as is now. The IS Army has not stated it has any of intentions of doing this yet AFAIK a similar launcher will be integrated with a land based version of Aegis for Guam. Were the IBCS integrated with these launchers, most any radar could provide fire control. Potentially, even an F-35 might do this. A single battery hardly would close the airspace but the threat of an extremely long ranged SAM might prevent large vulnerable aircraft from transiting between Taiwan and Luzon.

And of course SM-6 probably can reach any beach in Taiwan as well, even if it’s subsonic at longer ranges.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom