https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/general-atomics-successfully-tests-next-201832428.html>A controlled artillery round that can hit targets from 120 kilometers away in GPS-denied environments was successfully tested at U.S. Army Yuma Proving Ground, Arizona.>General Atomics Electromagnetic Systems’ Long Range Maneuvering Projectile, or LRMP, was fired from an M777 howitzer platform using M231 powder charges during an August test, the company announced Monday.>The LRMP, a next-generation munition, is designed to extend the range and precision of 155mm artillery systems, the company said. The winged, precision-guided artillery round is highly maneuverable while in flight and can conduct controlled descents to strike both static and moving targets.
What's the benefit over a missile? Is it cheaper than an M30A2?
>>64408084Now do bullets
>>64408099Its smaller and can be fired from presumably any 155, making its launch platform the same as any run of the mill SPH. This means that it will be hard to pick priority targets making the missile a safer and better choice for many types of strikes. Especially ones requiring precision and short lag time.The smaller size also probably makes it cheaper cheaper on a 1-1 basis, though the undoubtedly smaller warhead also makes it generally less effective overall.
>>64408099You can have a couple of those for a regular battery in case you suddenly need to kill something further away
>>64408084A worthy son of LRLAP
>>64408099It'll give 155mm toobs an additional trick up their sleeve and will definitely be cheaper than a guided missile. Rocket motors are more expensive than shell charges.
>>64408188G hardened electronics are more expensive than a rocket motor
>>64408192I'd assume a missile also had those, on top of the motor
>>64408192>G hardened electronics are more expensiveOnce upon a time yes, now much less so
>>64408084>artillery round that can hit targets from 120 kilometers away in GPS-denied environmentsWhoa, this is almost the range of ER-GMLRS. If the terminal phase is survivable as GMLRS and the price can be knocked down to low 6 figs, it'll be a great way to keep a persistent threat on whatever a HIMARS can do, with a smaller footprint.
>>64408084One thing to note is that gun launched missiles could use ramjets without needing a secondary propulsion system
>>64408188how much of the cost of a PGM is in the rocket motor, really
>>64408269Basically nothing, it’s all sensors and electronics. Economies of scale help out a lot with the latter, former is pretty much always going to be expensive for anything with a good CEP
>>64408291yeah I'd think so, hence the rhetorical question.if anything I'd expect that having to cram everything into a shell casing that undergoes several hundred G's during firing drives the cost way up compared to just using white label consumer electronics priced at 100x markup
>>64408309>>64408269not quite the best comparison, because the electronics of both guided missiles and guided shells are expensiveleaving the electronics out of the equation, rocket motors cost the same as an entire artillery shell howeverfactoring in the electronics, a guided artillery shell ends up costing at most the same as an GMLRS missile, probably cheaper actually
What kind of a mousefart load do they use to fire that? I have serious doubts it's better to design a winged guided missile to be fired from a 155 rather than have it containerized for individual firing.
If we assume the OP image is an accurate representation, the shell may have a sabot to help shield it from some of the force, (if not the Gs), and just to let it fit snug in the barrel.
>General Atomics
>>64408192>G hardened electronics are more expensive than a rocket motorDifferent industrial streams tho.Right now we're bottlenecked on kinetics - both HE and rocket motor production is maxed out. Or at least we were last time I checked a year ago.Meanwhile you probably still have such hardened electronics parts on a shelf somewhere that you can get instantly. Maybe.
>>64408084>10x the range of an APKWS IISure, but how much?
>>64408366>What kind of a mousefart load do they use to fire that?A spring. The tank makes a funny BOINGYOING sound when it fires one of those
>>64408121>smaller size also probably makes it cheaper cheaper on a 1-1Not really. Smaller, shock resistant electronic are more expensive. It's just that calibers above 155mm introduced a lot of other platform compromises. A 175mm or 203mm gun would probably have cheaper rounds, but hauling that gun around is a challenge.
>>64408744Those are like, two entirely different things.
>>64408258I don't understand the aversion to ramjets
>>64408872>RamjetsHard and expensive.Engineers, machinists, and beancounters all have an aversion to hard and expensive.Jarheads however LOVE items that are hard and expensive, so I can understand why some /k/ dwellers might get confused.
>>64408884>Hard and expensive.It's like a jet engine without the complicated bits, and can run on kerosene.It's used as the second stage of a variety of missiles like the Sea Dart.Can you elaborate on why it's more challenging to engineer than a rocket?
>>64408192What do rockets need to be accurate anon?
>>64408895The complicated moving bits is what gives you the control over what goes in and out of the engine. Without that control your engine very quickly either stops working or becomes a bomb.
>>64408900So then you can actually have an effect on the target instead of doing a 1940 terror bombing simulator
>>64408913A lot of those challenges seem to have been overcome by Boeing-Nammo.What makes it inferior?
>>64408938expensive
insane range good for them last week in the battleship thread people were saying a shell could never go that far and it is funny that a week later shells can go that far from a basic unmodified 155theoretically if it can go 120km from a 6 inch gun how far could a scaled up version go from a 16 inch gun with all other factors being the same?
>>64408943Everyone says they're cheaper than their competitors in arms show pamphlets. This doesn't make it true.
>>64408944That's because they were talking about range *without extended range rounds that add thrust*
>>64408978thats like talking about bike range without pedaling tbf nobody said it was impossible but there was a lot of posts sneering and seething that shells could go further than they could in WW2
>>64408944>neverfuck off you disingenuous faggot
>>64409123answer the question and cool it with the anti-battleship sentiments scared your VLS stocks will lose value?
>>64408872Boeing and Rheinmetall have Ramjet artillery in development, last year they were already testing prototypes in Ukraine with >100km range
>>64408944Same thread is made months ago.
>>64409550ok link it so I can see
>>64408884Ramjets are not that difficult. It is India tier tech. The working condition is a lot more contant than aircraft taking off or missile launching from pylons and the cost are a lot cheaper than mini turbofan on cruise missiles.
>>64409585https://desuarchive.org/k/thread/62745141/#62745143
>>64409550>>64409610no mention of battleship guns or upscaling in that threadI was there too and read that thread last year, im getting old asf and wasting time that just flies by Ephesians 2:10 makes me feel better about it tho
>>64408938Ramjets tend to be lower thrust per weight and more fuel consumption when compared to other jets. Rockets are simpler amd cheaper, better thrust/weight and more reliable.Ramjet can be more fuel efficient than a rocket because it doesn't need oxidizer, but otherwise inferior to a rocket in every other way.
>>64408863They do the exact same fucking thing. One is larger and probably 30x more expensive.
>>64408944Assuming these tech lives up to its word, it makes sense that the battleship (or just a straight up heavy ordinance capital ship) is being brought up again by the Pentagon. There is so many new tech emerging that it's actually dumb to not put them on a modernized capital ship that can power them.
>>64409666Youd be lucky if there is ironwork in US that still has the tooling to make gun barrel diameter larger than 155mm.
>>64409803Nuclear Battle/Arsenalship
>>64409708>ramjets are worse than other jets, and this makes them worse than rocketsYou didn't really think this through, did you?
>>64409839somebody in the other thread said its actually common, but I can not substantiate that claim
>>64409844>Arsenal Bird is real>but it's a boatMeh. Good enough.
what if we take the Spinlaunch system, put it on an aircraft carrier, and have it's nuclear reactor power the thing and lob shells 500km away
>>64409947the more i think about it the better the idea becomes>no need for propellant so can ship much more ammo>carrier is big enough for a small factory to fabricate shells from raw resources by itself, increasing ammo per shipment count>lots of deck space for multiple gunsand if it can reach orbit, im sure it can go further than 500km. it could just sit in the gulf of oman and shell Tehran nonstop for months on end.
>>64409973also doesnt need shock-resistant electronics in the ammo since the speedup is gradual
>>64409708Sounds good for a shell that spends a lot of time in the draggy transonic regime
>>64409973My question now is why put it on a carrier and retrofit them? Like at this point we are doing the same crap antiBBfags make where they are against a BB cuz too much risk in one ship.Battlecarriers would be cool tho. But I still see them going for a battleship/carrier fleet especially if how many ordinances they put require much power.
>>64409973> I need to bring oreo cookies to the campout > they take up too much space> le me instead bring an oreo factory with me > problem solved
>>64410009>Ramjet>TransonicYou could've at least read about ramjets for more than 10 seconds before speaking
>>64408318the electronics in the shell are way more expensive than the ones in a normal missile
>>64410057NTA but can we get a source on g hardened electronics being expensive somebody in another thread said the sprint missile was pulling a nuclear warhead at 100gs in the 70s
>>64410123It's an outdated meme. G hardening was expensive in the 1990s (and hell in the 1980s - go back and read some early radar developers MMW designs) so millennials read about it as kids or listened to their dads complain about it, and carried those preconceptions into the modern day despite early Excalibur being the last thing to suffer from it circa 2010.IDK why you'd assume a prototype cold war ABM defense project has anything to do with price though; that's like saying putting men on the moon with gold wires in their electronics implies the whole world has pure gold rockets.Today potted electronics are cheap. This is all stuff for the history books.
>>64410123100g is extremely low compared to a gun. A typical howitzer shell might experience 15,000g.
>>64409846Ramjets are worse than jets in thrust/wt, reliability and fuel efficiency.Ramjets are worse than rockets in thrust/wt and reliability.
>>64410150interestingI only mentioned the old stuff because electronics werent printed out by the millions back then>>64410181damn didnt know that desu
>>64408188>Rocket motors are more expensive than shell charges.Ballistic rockets use solid fuel motors, which are just tubes of fuel and are absurdly cheap.
>>64408084NORKTARD ON SUICIDE WATCHKOKSANS ON NOTICE:YOU ARE HUNTED
>>64410246Shell charges are bags of powder.
>>64410256South Koreans should have built their proposed battleship plans before this got announced.>Build Battleship>hurr durr outdated defense gun ship with short range>no reason to retaliate>battleship cannons can now outfit guided munitions that can bombard pyongyang at will for really cheap
>>64409973>the more i think about it the better the idea becomesbut then you ship becomes snail-shaped, which is uncool
>>64410256Norktard may be an off-the-grid-living schizo (I've seen his mice bucket traps) but he's OK with Nork soldiers and nork equipment being BTFO'd. At least in Ukraine.
>>64408084>HA HA YOU CANNOT DO DRONES SILLY AMERICANS, LOOK AT OUR AMAZING PROTOTYPES THAT TOTALLY WORK IN MORE THAN JUST THESE OPTIMIZED, LIMITED-TIME VACUUM SCENARIOS>"Oh fuck we can't do drones. Fuck it, let's stick our shitty drones into artillery. We'll just make the Howitzer shells do the drone work!">Oh. Oh shit.
>>64408944Missile retards don't want you to know this, but sub-caliber 16" rounds can travel over 1000 km.
>>64410745that rendering shows an archaic 12 inch iirc
>>64410745If the objective is simple bombardment you're better using cruise missiles, and beyond 200 km rockets are cheaper than gun even in propellant mass (there's a reason why nobody uses space guns).
cruise missiles are great if you have 6 hours notice and a static target
>>64410745Imagine the rounds per minute. Nonexistent. So is the warhead mass if you calc it out.Rocket engines are the modern meta.
>>64408872Sometimes they just don't work as well. In the XM1155 program for a guided 100km munition, there's a BAE HVP derived sub-calibre munition competing against the Boeing ramjet round. Both have been tested and exact ranges haven't been announced, but the BAE team has said theirs had the greater range.
>>64410943NTA but arguably the "modern meta" is to have extremely under-armed navies and underequipped land forces with a handful of long range "precision assets" with absolutely no strategic depth and no supply chain
>>64409722>They do the exact same fucking thing.They absolutely do not. This is closer to a GMLRS or GLSDB than a guidance package for a 70mm rocket.
>>64408099Even if it's not 100% of rounds, now 100% of 155mm artillery can potentially hit targets 120 kilometers away. Instead of having to target a handful of specialized systems that can hit that deep you now have to target every single artillery system because you don't know which artillery system will be given the munitions. It's the difference in Russia (easy example in Ukraine) from having to try to destroy (or track) a handful (maybe 20-40) of specialized systems to have a sense of security to having to destroy literally every (500-600+) 155mm artillery
>>64411043The modern meta is to have an assassin's ice pick, a "kill-you button," to keep the world in line through fear alone, as much as possible.The modern meta, by mercantile rulers, is to avoid a militarized society. Not only to avoid the humanitarian catastrophe of the 20th century abattoir, but also to foster softness, haplessness, and a non-threatening core constituency.
>>64411043Those "underarmed" navies are slinging missiles with ten to one hundred times the explosives of superguns at half to 5% of the delivery cost. It's crazy how stupid big guns are when you actually do the math.
>>64408188>Rocket motors are more expensive than shell charges.You get an entire GMLRS rocket for the price of 1 Excalibur shell. Guided shells are expensive because they need to survive the 100 000 G shock from firing.
>>64411077good idea. its a shame bad guys dont just chill and let the forces of good have the upper hand forever>>64411082not a single modern navy has enough firepower regardless of how you think the best way to add firepower is
>>64410057thirty years ago
>remake bullets to be missiles>remake missiles to be drones
>>64408725That's not a bad point; we really need a larger stockpile of anti-air munitions right now, and that will probably take a few years. At least Hydra motors don't require that much fuel.>>64410246It's the process that makes solid rocket motors expensive, not the feedstocks. Especially if you want high energy density, high reliability, long shelf-life, and high insensitivity to physical shocks, all of which the US places a high value upon.>>64411139PGK is much more reasonably-priced, however.
>>64411155>single modern navy has enough firepowerRetarded notion of "firepower"Russia gliding FAB-3000 bombs into empty commieblock apartments is a stunt, especially when half miss and the soviet construction which used less than half the blueprinted rebar is still standing.Naval guns are dogshit and are at best equivalent to heavy self propelled artillery. Meanwhile the field artillery can actually disperse, move to a useful location and camouflage. Meanwhile your warship is stuck 300nm off the coast because it is suicide to sail any closer.
