DARPA is developing a new intermediate-range weapon it calls Operational Fires<\/a>, a reference to the theater level of war, between tactics and strategy. This year, DARPA is ground-testing three rival designs for a revolutionary \u201cthrottleable\u201d rocket motor, with the winner going on to a full-up flight test in 2023. By that point, according to the current modernization plan<\/a>, the Army will already have started buying an off-the-shelf MRC missile to meet immediate needs \u2013 but DARPA will have to convince the service that OpFires is the long-term solution it really wants.<\/p>\n Will the Army Want OpFires?<\/strong><\/p>\n OpFires began 2017 as a joint Army-DARPA effort to develop a hypersonic weapon with a range between 500 and 5,500 kilometers<\/a> (310 to 3,418 miles). That\u2019s because the INF Treaty \u2013 later abrogated<\/a> \u2013 banned cruise and ballistic missiles in that range band but (arguably) not hypersonics, which are neither. The Army provided $19 million for OpFires in 2020 and requested another $28 million for 2021<\/a> \u2013 but the service then decided to pull its funding<\/a>.<\/p>\n Nevertheless, DARPA and prime contractor Lockheed Martin are still optimistic that what they\u2019re building could be the Army\u2019s long-term answer for its mid-range missile needs, and the service still gets regular briefings on OpFires\u2019s progress. While the DARPA missile won\u2019t be ready for fielding in 2023, it could \u201cabsolutely\u201d lead to an operational Army weapon in the \u201clater 2020s,\u201d said DARPA\u2019s program manager, Army Lt. Col. Amber Walker<\/a>.<\/p>\n \u201cWe\u2019re well-suited from a system development standpoint to catch them on the back end, [and] we are uniquely aligned to the Army\u2019s medium-range gap,\u201d Walker said in an interview. While the decision is up to the Army, she told me, \u201cwe certainly hope \u2026 it\u2019ll be at least a compelling option for them to consider.\u201d<\/p>\n What would OpFires offer the Army it can\u2019t get otherwise? It\u2019s important that it\u2019s both intermediate-range and hypersonic. In 2023, the Army plans to deploy both its first hypersonic missile, the Long-Range Hypersonic Weapon<\/a> (LRHW), and its first intermediate-range missile since the Cold War Pershing III, the Mid-Range Capability<\/a> (MRC). But it won\u2019t have a weapon that\u2019s both intermediate-range and <\/em>hypersonic.<\/p>\n LRHW will be bigger, faster, and longer-ranged than MRC, flying \u201cthousands of kilometers\u201d as opposed to 1,800 km (1,118 miles). LRHW will also be much more expensive and relatively rare, reserved for the most important, distant, and difficult targets<\/a>.<\/p>\n But just this year, the Army decided it needed MRC as well as a cheaper, more numerous weapon to strike larger numbers of less distant targets. That late start meant the Army couldn\u2019t develop a new weapon by 2023, so it would need to modify a US or allied missile already in service \u2013 and none of those is hypersonic.<\/p>\n Having a smaller, cheaper hypersonic option alongside LRHW would be intriguing for Army commanders. \u201cWe view ourselves as complementary [to LRHW] and not duplicative,\u201d Walker emphasized.<\/p>\n Significantly, Lockheed Martin has already selected the hypersonic glide body<\/a> that will carry the missile warhead, coasting to the target (hence \u201cglide body\u201d) at Mach 5-plus once the rocket motors cut off. That glide body is the one Lockheed is already developing for the Air Force\u2019s ARRW program (Air-launched Rapid Response Weapon)<\/a>. \u00a0\u00a0While the exact sizes of these weapons are classified, both DARPA and Lockheed Martin confirmed for me that the ARRW glide body is smaller than LRHW\u2019s. That would allow the whole weapon to be smaller, which would make it cost less, too.<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.fie.undef.edu.ar\/ceptm\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/11\/camion.jpg\")