Military Review

Send a projectile 100 kilometers. Status and prospects of the ERAMS program

28

Record shot of the XM1299 self-propelled gun with the X M1113 projectile at a distance of 70 km, December 2020.Photo by US ARmy


The Pentagon and a number of American enterprises continue work on the ERAMS program, the purpose of which is to create a promising extended-range artillery projectile. By now, part of the research and design work has been completed, and the participants in the next stage of the program will be determined in the near future.

Organizational matters


The ERAMS (Extended-Range Artillery Munitions Suite) program started in the recent past and is directly related to a number of other projects for the development of missile forces and artillery. Its goal is to create an artillery projectile in the existing 155 mm caliber with a firing range of at least 100 km. A promising ammunition has already received the designations - XM1155 and Extended-Range Artillery Projectile (ERAP).

In May last year, the Pentagon signed several contracts for preliminary research and design work in the framework of "phase 1". Boeing, General Dynamics, Northrop Grumman and Raytheon joined the program at this stage. They also brought in several subcontractors who were entrusted with the development of individual components and assemblies.

A year ago, the ERAMS program participants made the most daring plans and were going to win the competition. Later, however, the situation changed. Recently, Breaking Defense reported that Raytheon had terminated its participation in the program. The reasons for this decision are not noted. At the same time, Boeing continues to operate. The status of the other two ERAMS members is unknown.


XM1113 projectile in flight. US Army Photos

It is also reported that by now the program participants have completed the necessary work and presented preliminary designs of their XM1155 projectile. Over the next two weeks, the Pentagon will select two of the most successful developments, the development of which will continue in the framework of Phase 2. Which of the program participants are favorites - has not yet been specified.

Technical tasks


Currently, the US Army is armed with a wide range of 155-mm howitzer artillery shells with different firing range characteristics. So, ACS M109 with the help of existing active-rocket projectiles can hit a target at ranges of 25-30 km; new ammunition XM1113 is sent 40 km. The promising XM1299 self-propelled gun with a long-barreled gun throws the XM1113 at 70 km.

At the same time, the US Army is in need of a further increase in the characteristics of the range of barreled artillery. Studies have shown that this challenge cannot be solved with individual components and products, and an integrated approach is required. The required characteristics can only be shown by a full-fledged artillery system, which includes a weapon, a projectile and a propellant charge of new types.

The ERAMS program management notes that the general problem of increasing the range can be divided into three components, each of which requires its own solution. The first is an increase in the energy characteristics of the projectile, achieved by increasing the length of the barrel and the volume of the chamber, as well as by increasing the propellant charge. These are the issues that are now being worked out within the ERCA program using two types of experimental weapons.


Experienced ramjet engine from Northrop Grumman. Photo Deagel.com

The second direction is to improve the aerodynamics of the projectile so that it can more fully use the energy received. The ERAMS program investigated the use of additional planes that create a lift. The need to create thrust after exiting the barrel was also confirmed. For this, you can use a traditional solid fuel or ramjet engine.

Research and experiments have shown that ramjet engines (ramjet) have the greatest potential in the field of projectiles. Unlike a rocket, it takes an oxidizer from the atmosphere, which makes it possible to obtain a larger supply of direct fuel in the same dimensions and mass. This provides opportunities for increased traction and / or longer run times. In addition, there is no need to solve the problem of the initial acceleration of the projectile. By the time it exits the barrel, it already has the high speed required to launch the ramjet engine.

Projectile or rocket


As part of the research part of the ERAMS program, the optimal appearance and equipment composition of a promising projectile with an increased range was formed. He proposes preserving only certain features of the traditional projectile design while simultaneously introducing solutions borrowed from missile weapons.

It is obvious that the development of such an ammunition that meets all technical and operational requirements is complex. However, it is known about the successful completion of some of the events. Thus, Northrop Grumman and Innoveering independently developed and tested compact ramjet engines at the stand. Now such engines have to be integrated into the design of the projectile.


The concept of a projectile with a ramjet engine from the Nammo company. On its basis, a Boeing project is being developed. Nammo Photos

Details on the study of aerodynamics and electronics have not yet been reported. The specificity of artillery suggests that the creation of control systems should not be simple either. However, the last news On the progress of ERAMS, it can be assumed that in these areas there are certain successes, allowing to move on to the next stage of development.

From project to arsenals


As follows from the available data, to date, there are three main participants in the ERAMS program, excluding subcontractors. They have prepared their concepts of the XM1155 ERAP projectile, and in the very near future the Pentagon will select the two most successful proposals for further development. Due to the lack of information, it is not yet possible to predict which companies will receive contracts for the "second phase".

Several more years are allotted for the second competitive stage, determining the best design and bringing it to a series and using it in the troops. Production of XM1155 products is planned to be launched only by 2025. After that, it will take some time to achieve the desired production rate and build up stocks.

By the time a new shell appears, the troops will already have the necessary weapons. So, in 2023, it is planned to adopt a number of missile and artillery systems, among which there will be the first battery of the XM1299 self-propelled guns. At first, these guns will be able to use existing ammunition, including the newest XM1113, and then the promising XM1155 with record performance will arrive in part.

Send a projectile 100 kilometers. Status and prospects of the ERAMS program

Features of the use of the promising projectile XM1155. TARDEC / US Army graphics

The XM1299 ERCA self-propelled guns are planned to be operated as part of separate artillery battalions with tank divisions. It is at this level that the army will receive new opportunities associated with a significant increase in the firing range. Artillery divisions of tank brigades will also not be left without a new one. weapons... The upgraded M109A7 self-propelled guns and compatible XM1113 projectiles are intended for them.

Decisive choice


Thus, the United States continues the largest program of upgrading missile forces and artillery weapons, covering all major areas. A number of promising missile and artillery systems are going to be adopted as early as 2023, thereby increasing the potential of the ground forces. In the meantime, all promising projects are at the stage of development and testing.

At the same time, major decisions are already being made that will affect all further events. So, in the near future, the Pentagon will select the participants in the next stage of the ERAMS program. And the future of American artillery as a key component of ground forces capable of providing superiority over the enemy depends on this choice.
Author:
28 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Jacket in stock
    Jacket in stock 27 May 2021 04: 59
    +11
    Launch an expensive rocket through an expensive cannon ...
    Isn't it easier to launch the same rocket at a rocket?
    It seems that the Americans have already passed this on a cannon for a "super-super-destroyer". The missile shells turned out to be many times more expensive than conventional missiles with many times less efficiency.
    Now the ground forces have gone on this rake? Well, good luck ...
    1. Angry Alt-Right
      Angry Alt-Right 27 May 2021 05: 51
      +2
      Quote: Jacket in stock
      Launch an expensive rocket through an expensive cannon ...
      Isn't it easier to launch the same rocket at a rocket?
      It seems that the Americans have already passed this on a cannon for a "super-super-destroyer". The missile shells turned out to be many times more expensive than conventional missiles with many times less efficiency.
      Now the ground forces have gone on this rake? Well, good luck ...

      Whoever, and the Americans know how to count according to an estimate, then the amount of gross money should not be embarrassing! Judging by what is written in the article, they can already get a shot at 70 km without resorting to MLRS and operational-tactical complexes. In theory, this gives an alternative cost to the shot, in practice, more numbers are needed.
      The fleet actually aimed at "cheap replacement for light cruise missiles" + increased ammunition (in comparison), and before that there was talk about the formation of Zamvolt as a nuclear-powered destroyer, in order to power a rail gun! wassat
      1. Jacket in stock
        Jacket in stock 27 May 2021 06: 03
        +6
        Quote: Angry Alt-Right
        they can already get a shot at 70 km without resorting to MLRS and operational-tactical complexes

        Yes, there was shooting at the range.
        But the gun was not serial. Those. a new tool is required, which kills the original idea of ​​making "cheap and cheerful". Just pushing a new shell into a cannon, of which there are thousands in the army, and simply increasing the capabilities of the existing artillery will not work.
        But to increase the capabilities of MLRS missiles is just as easy as shelling pears. But despite the fact that the launcher costs several orders of magnitude cheaper than the cannon, they still adapt the new missiles to the old launchers.
        1. Angry Alt-Right
          Angry Alt-Right 27 May 2021 06: 09
          +3
          Quote: Jacket in stock
          Yes, there was shooting at the range.
          But the gun was not serial. Those. a new tool is required, which kills the original idea of ​​making "cheap and cheerful".

          It seems to me that this is not about "cheap and cheerful", but about "alternative cost in comparison with something." And then you yourself understand how simple thoughts can open up.
    2. Vladimir_2U
      Vladimir_2U 27 May 2021 06: 11
      +4
      Quote: Jacket in stock
      Launch an expensive rocket through an expensive cannon ...
      Isn't it easier to launch the same rocket at a rocket?
      It seems that the Americans have already passed this on a cannon for a "super-super-destroyer". Missile shells

      On the destroyer, it is missiles, shells with a huge elongation of the hull,


      Land shells are much more modest.
      1. garri-lin
        garri-lin 27 May 2021 13: 15
        +2
        It is still unknown how it will turn out at the finish line. Engine plus fuel plus actual payload. Compact will not be unambiguous. Plus brains almost certainly.
    3. OgnennyiKotik
      OgnennyiKotik 27 May 2021 07: 40
      -1
      Quote: Jacket in stock
      Isn't it easier to launch the same rocket at a rocket?

      The rocket is larger in size and mass, which immediately reduces their possible number.
      Artillery has a large range of shells, depending on the distance and importance of the target, you can work with different ones: cheap conventional HE, high-precision Excalibur type, then over-long-range XM1113 / 1155. They also want the ACS to shoot down air targets, or rather, it is already doing it on tests.
      They want to make a universal installation out of the self-propelled guns that can destroy any ground and air target at distances of up to 100 km. With the ability to use both "cheap" and "expensive" shells.
      HIMARS / MLRS universal rocket launchers for missiles with a range from 100 km to 1000 km
      Quote: Jacket in stock
      The missile shells turned out to be many times more expensive than conventional missiles with many times less efficiency.

      The problem is in a small batch. Serial production was never launched.
      1. Crabong
        Crabong 27 May 2021 08: 05
        +2
        It's good that they don't want this SPG to destroy UNDERWATER targets yet ...
        1. OgnennyiKotik
          OgnennyiKotik 27 May 2021 08: 19
          -1
          This is for the ILC. Destruction of ships is a matter of course in their requirements. The fight against submarines is not yet in their doctrine.
          1. Crabong
            Crabong 27 May 2021 09: 12
            -1
            No, I mean that now they are going to fire from a howitzer at cruise missiles and, probably, the day is not far off when they come up with a howitzer to hit submarines ... Don't you find it funny?
            1. OgnennyiKotik
              OgnennyiKotik 27 May 2021 10: 23
              -1
              No, I don't. And they are not going to, but already knocking down the educational goals. This is the normal development of weapons and equipment. Once upon a time there were dozens of different types of aircraft: strategic, tactical, front-line, heavy, light, long-range, etc. bombers, several dozen types of attack aircraft and fighters. Now everything converges to 2 types of fighters (some countries generally have 1) and 1-2 types of bombers (only 3 countries).
              In the USA, 2 types of universal installations are made for launching missiles and launching projectiles (active-reactive). What to launch and for what should be indifferent.
              This simplifies logistics, you need to transfer 2 types of launchers, bringing only missiles / shells for the desired tasks.
              1. Crabong
                Crabong 27 May 2021 10: 59
                0
                Attempts to universalize have more than once led to a fiasco ... You will personally see what will come of it (IMHO).
                P.S. An artillery shell with pvd and reo is of course something ...
      2. Nikolaevich I
        Nikolaevich I 27 May 2021 11: 25
        +2
        Quote: OgnennyiKotik
        The rocket is larger in size and mass, which immediately reduces their possible number.
        Artillery has a large range of shells, depending on the distance and importance of the target, you can work with different ones: cheap conventional HE, high-precision Excalibur type, then over-long-range XM1113 / 1155. They also want the ACS to shoot down air targets, or rather, it is already doing it on tests.

        Do you think "surprised"? Yes, not a fig! The point is that the same "list" can be announced for installations, eres MLRS!
        1. ERs do not have to be equipped with solid propellant motors! They can be equipped with ramjet engines ... for example, in the form of a "rocket-ramjet" engine! With the same range, the size and weight of the eres are reduced ... (Even in the last century, prototypes of eres with ramjet engines were developed ...)
        2. Eres can be not only with a detachable warhead, but also quickly replaced before launch .... (the number of "launch vehicles" may be less than the number of warheads in ammunition ...). Warheads, like shells, can be in " wide assortment "!
        3. In the United States developed anti-aircraft missiles for launching from MLRS! And if they abandoned them for some reason at that stage, this does not mean that it was technically unrealistic to make them or they would not be needed at the next stage! The Russian Armed Forces were supposed to launch Hermes anti-tank missiles from the Pantsir air defense missile systems!
        4. In MLRS, as in barrel artillery, it is possible to use not only guided eres (both "cheaper" and "more expensive" ...); but also uncontrollable ...! Eres can be used, equipped not only with quick-change warheads, but also with 2-stage engines, in order to use the engine, both with one stage ("short" version ...) and with two stages ("long" version) ...
  2. Ros 56
    Ros 56 27 May 2021 05: 53
    0
    Let them have fun, we don’t mind their money. lol
  3. andrewkor
    andrewkor 27 May 2021 06: 04
    +2
    How many explosives the Tornado or Hurricane and this "device" will deliver to the target. For the Army Games, it may be suitable in the nomination "who will throw further", but how with the accuracy of hitting the target at such a distance. Oh, yes, I forgot about the drones! Then you also need to sculpt the appropriate equipment on it. Let them have fun!
  4. Crabong
    Crabong 27 May 2021 08: 03
    +3
    It is not clear why "sculpt a hunchback"? Are there rocket systems? Raytheon is not in vain, it seems to me that they abandoned this venture ...
  5. riwas
    riwas 27 May 2021 08: 05
    +5
    It is expensive to make such a projectile in 155mm caliber. But our 203-mm self-propelled gun "Malka" is more suitable for this purpose.
    1. chenia
      chenia 27 May 2021 10: 02
      +5
      Quote: riwas
      It is expensive to make such a projectile in 155mm caliber. But our 203-mm self-propelled gun "Malka" is more suitable for this purpose.


      I agree. And using a special power supply. Otherwise, everything loses its meaning. Missiles and MLRS fully cover this range. There should be a single shot at an important object in the operational area. And that's all.
      1. bk0010
        bk0010 27 May 2021 13: 34
        0
        Quote: chenia
        And using a special power supply.
        Special shells Warheads are long gone: they feel sorry for plutonium. With the same amount of plutonium, the projectile will give 5-15 kT, and the thermonuclear warhead - as much as needed. There are now enough carriers.
        1. chenia
          chenia 27 May 2021 15: 18
          0
          Quote: bk0010
          Special shells Warhead is gone for a long time


          There were, so on occasion, maybe.

          Quote: bk0010
          how much do you need

          Here is an option that how much is NOT needed.

          Quote: bk0010
          Not suitable: firing a rocket from a cannon is expensive,


          And it will not work (not pressure, not such accelerations, the rocket will not withstand) - it means an adjustable projectile.
          Quote: bk0010
          it is easier to attach the accelerator.

          For this level, and two-stage (conditionally)?
          The weapon provides greater stealth when striking, (relatively natural), and the blow is understandable from the special BP.
    2. bk0010
      bk0010 27 May 2021 13: 32
      +1
      Quote: riwas
      But our 203-mm self-propelled gun "Malka" is more suitable for this purpose.
      Not suitable: it is expensive to shoot a rocket from a cannon, it is easier to attach an accelerator. The caliber is needed from 300 mm (see MLRS Smerch, Tornado, etc., the Grad has a smaller caliber, but also the range).
  6. Gunther
    Gunther 27 May 2021 15: 05
    +2
    Quote: Jacket in stock
    Launch an expensive rocket through an expensive cannon ...


    I agree, MLRS is more practical.
    As for the fact that "Americans know how to count money, so by cutting the Pentagon in front of the entire planet, mattresses can count, confusing their wool with the state one)))
    Anthony Carpaccio from Bloomberg:
    "The Department of Defense contributed $ 2019 trillion in 'accounting adjustments' in 35, well above the $ 30,7 trillion of similar adjustments recorded in 2018 ......"
  7. Lontus
    Lontus 27 May 2021 16: 35
    +5
    Already 100 times discussed here:

    1. An unguided long-range projectile is extremely inaccurate and meaningless.
    2. A guided missile is more expensive than a guided missile, carries a smaller warhead, and is much less flexible in application.

    Long-range shells are stupid and / or drank.
    Americans are not fools - accordingly, this is *****
    1. Lontus
      Lontus 27 May 2021 16: 40
      +2
      Chasing an ultra-long range in artillery, let alone measure it, is stupid.
      For her, other parameters are more important - first of all, accuracy and real combat rate of fire.
      Each species has:
      Barrel art; MLRS; Guided Missiles (UR)
      - its own optimal use niche.
      It is obvious that the development of technical progress is expanding the SD niche.
  8. Lontus
    Lontus 27 May 2021 16: 45
    +2
    The way to increase the range of the barrel art is a dead end.
    Accuracy drops very much.
    Even worse, it is in the active rocket version.
    Which is also much more expensive.

    If you try to improve accuracy using a guided projectile,
    then the high cost becomes prohibitive - no less than a guided missile with comparable characteristics.

    The meaning of barrel artillery is precisely the cheapness of a shot compared to missiles.
    To increase its value is absurd.
    The main advantage (cheapness) is lost, but a new one is not acquired - more precisely, missiles will not work.
    In addition, PU missiles are easier and cheaper than artillery mounts - they can be used more flexibly and deploy covertly.
  9. Max PV
    Max PV 28 May 2021 00: 30
    +1
    Here, too, I cannot understand the economy. What for?? The ramjet “eats up” at least 2/3 of the projectile volume, and you still need space for the seeker, as a result, we have a warhead of 10-12 kilograms at best. Add to this the cost of a seeker designed for overload when fired, which will be several times more expensive than the same missile, amortization of barrels and howitzers / self-propelled guns. But even if a seeker is installed on an ordinary 40-kilometer Grad and the mass of the warhead is reduced to the same 10-12 km, it will easily fly 70 km. And if you put a warhead of 25-30kg and a seeker on an MLRS or Hurricane projectile, you can easily work for a hundred kilometers. And I'm pretty sure they will be cheaper than these 155mm projectiles.
    1. onstar9
      onstar9 28 May 2021 04: 34
      -1
      Quote: Max PV
      But even if a seeker is installed on an ordinary 40-kilometer Grad and the mass of the warhead is reduced to the same 10-12 km, it will easily fly 70 km. And if you put a warhead of 25-30kg and a seeker on an MLRS or Hurricane projectile, you can easily work for a hundred kilometers. And I'm pretty sure they will be cheaper than these 155mm projectiles.

      Well, first of all, since they want to make long-range projectiles, there is probably a reason. If missiles had such an advantage in everything, then missiles would have been installed on tanks instead of guns long ago. By the way, there was such an idea in the period of the rise in the development of rocket technology, to replace everything with missiles. Then they refused it. And secondly, the cost of everything in the United States will be several times higher than in Russia, even missiles or shells. I read somewhere that the rockets (small) that the Americans "shoot" from helicopters at the mujahideen in Afghanistan (small groups in the desert) cost 100 dollars each. Where is the cheapness of the rocket here? Any projectile will be cheaper ... Even guided ...
  10. Zaurbek
    Zaurbek 28 May 2021 08: 33
    0
    Such a projectile will look good on our 203mm Malka ... And the power of the warhead will remain, and in such a caliber the range of 100 km already looks optimistic.