Posted on 10/27/2016 6:01:45 AM PDT by sukhoi-30mki
Army ATACMS missile launch.
“Outranged and outgunned” by Russian and Chinese missiles, the US Army wants a new long-range artillery rocket of its own. The nascent Long-Range Precision Fires program could do much more than replace the 25-year-old ATACMS missile, however. LRPF could become a linchpin of what the Army is calling Multi-Domain Battle, extending ground-based artillery’s reach not only to unprecedented ranges — hitting distant targets once reserved for airstrikes — but out to sea.
Why does the Army need to do this? Since 1991, when the Soviet Union fell and ATACMS entered service, the Army has largely neglected the artillery, so much so that one group of disgruntled officers called it a “dead branch walking.” Ground troops relied on the Air Force and Navy to dominate their own domains, prevent enemy airstrikes, and provide firepower on demand. But Russia, China, and even lesser powers like Iran have invested heavily in long-range, land-based anti-ship and anti-aircraft missiles to keep the US Air Force and Navy at bay. That means Army forces may have to bring their own in-house heavy firepower to the fight — not only to support its own units on land, but to help out the other services in the air and sea.
That’s where Multi-Domain Battle comes in. Against a high-tech foe with so-called Anti-Access/Area Denial defenses, where US fighters risk being shot down, the best way to take out an enemy airbase, missile battery or command post may be with a long-range land-based missile of one’s own. Likewise, when fighting an A2/AD adversary over a relatively narrow waterway — the Baltic and Black Seas in Europe, the East and South China Seas in Asia — the best way to destroy the enemy fleet may be from unsinkable missile bases on the land.
Admittedly, the initial iteration of Long-Range Precision Fires will probably be more limited. Currently, the Army intends to abide by the Intermediate Nuclear Forces treaty — despite Russia’s violations of it — and restrict LRPF’s range to under 500 kilometers (313 miles), which would still be a 67 percent increase over ATACMS. The Army is also not talking openly about an anti-ship LRPF specifically, although senior generals have called for ship-killing capability in general terms.
But LRPF is meant to be modular, open-architecture, and easy to upgrade. One of the two contractors on the program, Raytheon, told me that giving LRPF more than 500 km of range or an anti-ship seeker would be entirely doable.
“We’re going to provide a solution that allows them to very easily drop in alternate payloads, seekers, and other features,” said J.R. Smith, a former Air Force pilot who’s now Raytheon’s director of advanced warfare systems. “That’s one reason why you want to make your missile modular in its design, so that, for example you might drop in a different rocket motor down the road… There is a potential, as technology continues to advance, to come up with alternative rocket motors that will provide range in excess of 499 (km).”
Rival contractor Lockheed Martin — the incumbent on ATACMS — was more cagey when I asked this question. But VP for ground systems Scott Greene did note that “Lockheed Martin has a plethora of technology” that could be adapted for LRPF, such as its Long-Range Anti-Ship Missile (LRASM), if the Army wanted an land-based anti-ship solution.
The minimum requirement for LRPF is to perform as well as ATACMS: hit static targets on land up to 300 km away. Lockheed told me there’s plenty of potential to get more range out of ATACMS, let alone a new missile. You can also upgrading guidance. Static targets just require GPS and/or inertial navigation, but you need a radar or infrared seeker to find a moving target.
Once you’ve added that seeker for moving targets, though, you can use it against either ships or tanks, Smith said. In fact, even a small ship, like the 353-foot long Steregushchy corvette, is a vastly bigger target than a large tank, like the 35-foot-long T-14 Armata. Ships are also usually large metal objects that stick out from a flat expanse of water, while ground vehicles can hide among buildings, trees, or rocks.
Indeed, the Pentagon has repeatedly proven you can convert missiles made for other types of targets into anti-ship weapons. The Raytheon SM-6 missile defense interceptor gained anti-ship capability with no physical modifications, just a new software package, in one of the signal accomplishments of the newly created Strategic Capabilities Office. The software on the famed Tomahawk missile, designed to hit land targets, was essentially tricked into hitting moving ships.
So making LRPF capable of killing ships would be entirely in the realm of the possible. It would also be entirely in keeping with the Pentagon’s prioritization of naval warfare and its eagerness to wring new uses out of every weapon. Lockheed and Raytheon are currently on contract to study potential designs — which includes test detonations of live warheads — and expect 2017 awards of three-year contracts to build prototype rockets.
Another huge mistake of many that the Army has made in recent years. From an infantryman and aviator perspective, nothing puts the fear of God into you and forces you to go to ground more than massed artillery fires.
The Russians and Chinese haven't abandoned that concept.
ATACMS was our big hammer when conducting the deep attack mission with apache battalions. One of those basically takes out a grid square.
Ok from your link:
“This class of weapon is thus widely referred to as a “quasi-ballistic missile”, though the US Army has also referred to the ATACMS as a “maneuvering missile”.”
Given it’s guided on the terminal path and does not actually reach sub-orbit I very much doubt it reaches the terminal speed of 5000 m/s that a ballistic missile reaches. Though it may be faster than a harpoon’s unclassified 240 m/s in some way - since it’s planned terminal speed isn’t listed, ballistic terminal speed is dependent upon altitude obtained, and reduced by any drag introduced through terminal maneuvering - it’s impossible to determine the true difference.
I still see little advantage to investing in a completely new system when the harpoon is already being upgraded to double it’s distance to 134 nm and the tomahawk provides as accurate a delivery at a range of 800-1500 nm dependent on the variant. The Tomahawk does take time to get on target that I’ll give you and therefore is not likely responsive enough to tactical field requirements.
The harpoon on the other hand is a proven tactical weapon that is already available in canister usage - including coastal batteries with a booster, has multiple delivery profiles including a pop-up, and therefore likely easier to convert - in fact it could very easily be programmed to provide a ballistic pattern if that is truly desired.
I guess I’m just having a hard time understanding what the true advantage is given it isn’t a true ballistic speed missile. Doesn’t mean it’s not a good system...long as package is delivered down range, on target, on time.
Back in the day, we worked MLRS sensor to shooter missions at Ft. Stewart with Apaches in the late 90s. Digital fire mission from the bird all the way to the launcher. Took some effort, but we made it happen.
I remember the briefings on that effort when I was at Ft Hood. Now, it’s just routine...or can be with current technology.
The ATACMs is not mixed with a 277 pod. The ammo pods cannot be mixed. It’s a weight thing. The LLM pictured contains 2 ATACMs. All pods use the same 6 rocket cover that the 277s use.
13M
I’m talking more about the branch. The move to BCTs removed artillerymen for consideration from a lot of positions. I know several senior LTCs and COLs who were told POINT BLANK that an Artillerman would never command one of their brigades. This is stripping the branch of it’s senior officers like nothing else.
I was a Lance and MLRS officer before I got out, and nothing like that was ever close to happening before.
Army intends to abide by the Intermediate Nuclear Forces treaty — despite Russia’s violations of it — and restrict LRPF’s range to under 500 kilometers (313 miles)
This is a stupid restriction. Lawyers will kill everyone!
Roger, the Army has somewhat repaired that by bringing back the DIVARTYs (Division Artillery for those of you from Rio Linda) which provides more Colonel level commands. At one point there were only three Fires Brigades and three BCDs (Battlefield Coordination Detachments) for FA Colonels to command. With the DIVARTYs coming back that helps.
In the past couple of years FA Majors were selected for Lt. Col. below both Armor and Infantry. I (despite being a SAMS graduate) was one of those victims. Fortunately, I was a prior service and retired with 23 yrs active duty (32 total)
However the operational implications are still there. DIVARTYs do not have a GS battalion of thier own. Not even the MLRS battery of the J Series MTOE. So no ability to fight deep.
A fellow Artilleryman and college buddy had two highly successful tours in Iraq and Afghanistan, but had to retire as a LTC. He’s still bitter about being subordinated to those other branches, but he’s retired and double-dipping as an instructor at CGSC in DC. He was prior service as well, so it worked out OK.
ATACMS is a 24” diameter rocket. The chunks of stuff you see is the environmental covering that the rocket blows through when launched. That is a real launch photo.
The ATACMS has been around since Desert Storm and its seen more combat than the Harpoon: 560 fired, according to this link by LM. So obviously, the army sees some merit in such a system, rather going the cruise missile route.
Harpoon late ‘70s for first variant...I guess we could quibble about # of combat firings....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.