It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Long Range Standoff moving forward

page: 1
4

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 24 2017 @ 07:01 AM
link   
The US Air Force awarded contracts to Lockheed and Raytheon to continue development and risk reduction for the new Long Range Standoff capability.
The weapon system is intended to replace the aging AGM-86 ALCMs (Americas only nuclear armed cruise missile)
www.defensenews.com...

LRSO is highly controversial due to politics (left says nukes are evil or something), during the presidential election Clinton spoke out against it, stating she would be inclined to cancel it.
But she lost and the Trump Administration not only seem to mind much, on the contrary, SecDef Mattis outright stated he wants nuclear capable bombers with standoff capabilities.

Looks like LRSO is doing just fine and moving forward.
So time for some random thoughts.

The entire project will cost up to 30 billion US-$ and the weapon wont be fielded before the late 2020s.
I’m not against LRSO as an capability and don’t share the lefts hysteria about the weapons system.
But I fail to see why an entire new missile is necessary.

As far as what its publically known, LRSO will be nothing more than a conventional LO cruise missile with great range and accuracy.
Which would be great (especially the conventionally armed variant which will also be developed at some point), except the US Air Force already has a comparable missile in its inventory: JASSM-ER
I fail to see why it wouldn’t be possible to develop a nuclear (!) variant with a fraction of the cost for the LRSO. Sure, with 1000+km range it probably has less range than what the Air Force wants for the LRSO, but so what? Its more than enough if you pair it with a VLO bomber. Which just happens to be one the shopping list as well these days.

So why not? LRSO looks redundant to me, a nuclear JASSM-ER would be much cheaper and probably easier to survive a democratic Congress in the 2020s.
Is this push for an entirely new missile just mindless defense spending / aka the usual corruption or is there something more to LRSO?
I'm not sure.

The name has always irritated me. Long Range Standoff is just a description of a capability, not a weapons system. It should be named Lon Range Standoff Missile or something.
This is speculation, but maybe LRSO is just a front for more than one development effort to get a capability rather than a single weapons system and what we see publicly isn’t the entire story.
Same is probably true for the entire LRS-B ‘family of systems’ effort, so why not.

I don’t know how common this is, but the LRSO is highly classified, higher than the Minuteman III replacement effort, probably on par with the B-21. Just an effort to protect the program from certain members of Congress or something more?

Whats also interesting is Request for Information for the propulsion system for LRSO from 2015:
www.fbo.gov...
It lists a supersonic engine as an option under review for the LRSO effort.
A (truly) supersonic missile would change the picture obviously, as it would be a step up from what the JASSM-ER offers. And if we think about prompt global strike efforts and whatnot, a conventional armed supersonic cruise missile with almost intercontinental range would be very interesting as well.

So who knows.




posted on Aug, 24 2017 @ 07:58 AM
link   
a reply to: mightmight

I think the US government would be better off upgrading the storage and safety of the current crop of nuclear armed warheads, as well as the silos in which they are kept, the byproducts of their creation and securing the dumping grounds for those byproducts in a more stringent manner, than purchasing yet more gear with which to launch the end of the world, which is the only thing that can ever come of a nuclear strike on an enemy, no matter how it is justified.



posted on Aug, 24 2017 @ 08:09 AM
link   
a reply to: mightmight

Seems that bigger faster higher is still on the table as far as planes go .I caught this gem the other day .not sure if its really real or not or what it even means



posted on Aug, 24 2017 @ 08:39 AM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit

They are at it, us-nukes in germany for example, are already going through maintenance. Although, officially, there are none ;-)

www.rt.com...
www.theguardian.com...


edit on 24-8-2017 by verschickter because: typos



posted on Aug, 24 2017 @ 10:06 AM
link   
Ahh LRSO. One of my favorite missile types. They should construct these out of pure RCS material and launch them not with bombers but with boosters like the global strike missile. You know the one that is hypersonic and is purely kinetic.



posted on Aug, 24 2017 @ 10:59 AM
link   
a reply to: yuppa
-post removed-

that post was idiotic and I apoligize for it.
edit on 24-8-2017 by verschickter because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 24 2017 @ 11:03 AM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit

They just downselected Boeing and Northrop to do risk reduction and technology maturation on the next ICBM. They plan to downselect to one in FY19.



posted on Aug, 24 2017 @ 11:21 AM
link   
a reply to: the2ofusr1

It's a pipe dream. Maybe some paper plans but nothing concrete. Russia doesn't even have a 5th generation fighter engine now and they're going to develop a 6th gen engine with advanced bypass operation resulting in huge thrust and low fuel consumption? Russia, China,and India: all of them decades behind in engine technology. Form only meets function when all the goods under the hood are equal.

I imagine LRSO will have some tech in it necessary for the nuclear mission that would bloat the JASSM-ER. It's also going to have to be even more survivable and probably will necessitate an even longer range. Communications suites and probably the ability to abort up until the final minutes of the flight profile.
edit on 24-8-2017 by Caughtlurking because: punctuation



posted on Aug, 24 2017 @ 11:35 AM
link   
a reply to: mightmight

Yeah. Supersonic, huh? Maybe they have other plans than the way current models are utilized. Build those sturdy enough and they would make excellent munitions to touch off from low-orbit weapons platforms. Who's to know?



posted on Aug, 24 2017 @ 04:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: verschickter
a reply to: yuppa
-post removed-

that post was idiotic and I apoligize for it.


No need to apologize. i myself am a idiot at times.



posted on Aug, 26 2017 @ 12:01 PM
link   
a reply to: the2ofusr1

lol they used a Z in LASER and if RT thinks that using a laser to blind sensors is new then they are decades behind.



posted on Aug, 26 2017 @ 12:27 PM
link   
a reply to: mightmight





neat little powerpoint slide

this is the site for the picture. it's a intresting read
edit on 26-8-2017 by penroc3 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 26 2017 @ 02:00 PM
link   
$30B to enhance 50+ year old technology?

Sounds legit



posted on Aug, 26 2017 @ 02:04 PM
link   
a reply to: TXRabbit

It's a hell of a lot more advanced than it was 50 years ago.



new topics

top topics



 
4

log in

join