I like it, however the PAM ...  are they long ranged enough ?? Maybe PAM -ER

 

Would the space be  better for More SSM ?

 

USV??

 

 

How about speed. I would prefer a plaining hull over the tumblehome bow. this type of hull is for fuel conservation and friction over hull. but not speed.

Solution: Lockheed Martin's P44.

(from Defense-Update.Com   )

Lockheed Martin (NYSE:LMT) unveiled a new missile designated P44, designed to demonstrate a long range high precision strike capability. The P44 is designed for quick precision strike against moving surface targets under any battlefield conditions without minimum range limitations. It is designed to fill the gap in the ability to effectively engage and neutralize long-range artillery, particularly mobile rocket launchers. This compact missile (7-inch (17.8 cm) diameter) weighs 220-pound (100 kg)). It will have an effective range from zero to more than 70 kilometers. It will be launched from an MLRS multiple launch platform, such as the tracked MLRS, GMLRS or therapidly deployable wheeled HIMARS platforms.

The P44 missile completed its first flight February 15, 2007 launched from a surrogate HIMARS launcher. Further tests are planned in the near future, demonstrating confirming rocket motor performance, maneuvering and aeroballistics. On April 6th, 2007 P44 made its second test flight last week. In this test Lockheed Martin validated the operation of the missile's control actuation system and GPS-aided inertial guidance mode for P44. Sofar, the missile successfully demonstrated both boost and sustain operations, stability in cruise mode GPS guidance modes.
------------------------

 

Interesting feature is its 4 Mode Seeker

Lockheed Martin Unveils New Four-Mode Guidance Ground Launched Precision Strike Missile

FT. LAUDERDALE, FL, March 7th, 2007 --

Lockheed Martin [NYSE: LMT] today unveiled P44^®, a company-funded effort to demonstrate a long range strike missile for quick precision strike against moving surface targets under any battlefield conditions without minimum range limitations.

P44 ? a 7-inch diameter 220-pound missile with an effective range from zero to more than 70 kilometers ? is a next generation missile system.  It can be launched from an MLRS^® multiple launch platform, including the combat-proven HIMARS, the newest generation of highly-transportable multiple rocket launch platforms.

?Lockheed Martin has committed substantial internal funding to this development program to make an innovative new system available to our Army customer,? said Glenn Kuller, director of Tactical Missiles Advanced Programs for Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control.  ?We believe that by coupling mature missile and seeker technology with the combat-proven HIMARS launcher, we can offer an affordable, low-risk, fast, precision-strike solution to the moving target problem, without additional equipment or force structure.?

P44 was designed to respond to a gap in the ability to effectively engage and neutralize rapidly proliferating long-range artillery, particularly mobile rocket launchers. 

?This gap against fleeting targets is difficult to fill using projected munitions.  However, merging a fast boost-sustain motor, an adverse weather terminal seeker and HIMARS, will offer the Army a badly needed solution,? said Kuller.  ?With P44, aggressors cannot hide behind the weather, nor can they escape.?

With wings and fins folded, 10 P44s can be packaged into MLRS rocket pods with considerable margins for growth.  The four-mode P44 has Global Positioning System-aided inertial guidance; carries a mature tri-mode terminal seeker with semi-active laser (SAL) for designated targets; Doppler millimeter-wave radar (MMW) for weather penetration and detection of moving targets; and cooled imaging infrared (IIR) for imaging and discrimination.  The projected warheads for P44 are either a 28-pound HELLFIRE II Metal Augmented Charge (MAC) or a 17-pound shaped charge with precursor.

 

60 PAM

 

40 P44 - ER (80-170kms)

 

-- I like it

Took some digging,

but here's the jist  on the LAM's TDI-developed microturbine engine,

a compact design (squeezes inside a 7-inch diameter missile body) that can generate up to 100 pounds of thrust.

 

The applications of these microturbine class powerplants certainly have a lot of potential: small, reduced cost PGMs being the primary interest.

And the TDI-J7's smaller brethren could possibly be key to giving the SDB glide bomb an even greater range, with the added advantage that any left over liquid/slurry fuel adds to the incendiary effects on target.

Thing is though, just like when comparing the LAM to its solid-fueled brother PAM, is that warhead weight must be sacrificed in addition to replacing the solid fuel and rocket motor to incorporate the microturbine and its quite small fuel tank (still, the fact that a LAM could get 70km out and/or just loiter around for 30 minutes orbitting the battle zone looking for targets says something, especially for a barely-5-foot-long, 7-inch diameter missile).

LAM's warhead was expected to be about half that of PAM's (IIRC, I think it was 5kg vs 10kg, something in that neighborhood).

 

So, if we can develop other small scale PGMs and equip them with these microturbines (some R/C aircraft are already using miniature, micro-size jet engines, not just multi-bladed ducted fans),

we have a very large warfighting potential at our advantage.

 

Seeing as the PAM itself is pretty much the Hellfire of the 21st century (same general length, diameter, weight, and warhead class, but with far more capable guidance and longer range),

I expect that it's only a matter of time before we see multiple-round helicopter mounts for the weapon (perfect compliment with any of those recent laser-seeking 70mm rocket programs).

And if PAM can reach to about 40km from its surface launch cannister,

I wonder if an air-launched variant could carry much farther (dependent on the launch aircraft's speed and altitude),

or if we could modify the PAM to have a short range (10-25km) but 50-100% more warhead...?

 

Further refinements by these mnicroturbine developers will certainly give us improvements in fuel economies and overall thrust.

Even if only marginal, the addition of another 10-20% thrust or improved fuel economy could equate to a few minutes' less flight time to the same range, or a larger payload, or a longer range.

 

Seeing TDI's microturbine stablemates, I wonder if, akin to the USAF's LOCAAS under development (check some of the news articles on TDI's site),

perhaps next we could see a family of Viper Strike-sized enhanced range PGMs that can be the ideal armament for a number of long endurance small UAVs,

being both light enough and small enough to carry in numbers,

yet with warheads ideally suited to pinpoint strikes where collateral damage is an issue.

In open country, I'd just say to use the PAM (assuming it'll eventually replace Hellfires, providing we keep the option of various warheads other than the EFP),

but in cities, an airbreathing Viper Strike than can follow a boosted glide slope to targets 20+km away...

 

These would be perfect for FireScouts and other UAVs that just don't have the payload of the larger Predators.

 

It's an interesting design, and would be more capable then the LCS.

Interesting design. Looks to have a lot of wieght concentrated midships and astern. That type of bow may also prove difficult to berth.  Seems damage to the bulbous bow collision/allision with dock would be major problem with this design. 

As I said before: CG issues.

Herald

While Herald is correct in stressing the importance of controlling thte location of the CG, of absolute equal importance is the Centre of Bouyancy.  Thats what Naval Architects do.... tweaking hull form, structure and machinery spaces to get a vessel to behave as required.  I see no more problems with this proposal than what will be encountered with the actual DDG 1000.  See pic below:

 

 

You are quite right. I used an aviation mass balancing term term, when I should have used a flotation term.

I stand corrected.

There are some who raise the objections about the Zumwalt that I raise about the Fletcher.

Smaller hull, more concentrated mass forward in cross sections, I see the  Fletcher as a  nose diver.

This is entirely intuitive at the moment; as I have not sectioned the hull form to get cross sectional density per segment..

Herald

That's what I'm trying to convey. The whole issue of a forecastle as reserve bouyancy.