USAF Air Force Longe Range Weapon (AFLRW)

CJohnston

CJohnston

Faking it till you make it isn't so bad after all
Senior Member
Joined
4 January 2025
Messages
56
Reaction score
212
Website
www.navalnews.com
"The Air Force Life Cycle Management Center (AFLCMC) Armament Directorate (EB) is hosting a classified Industry Day to provide information and requirements to interested vendors regarding the new Air Force Longe Range Weapon (AFLRW). The AFLRW is aimed at addressing the next generation of Air-Launched Standoff Weapon variants in line with Department of War priorities. AFLRW may select multiple vendors for both the Air-to-Air (A/A) and Air-to-Surface (A/S) variants with a focus on A/A solutions for Initial Operational Capability."

"Both variants will have a threshold minimum range of 1,000 NM and be capable of striking respective A/A and A/S targets in Defense Planning Scenario 2.1 and 7.1 environments in a responsive manner. AFLRW will seek vendors for each variant’s initial production rounds to meet threshold requirements."

https://sam.gov/workspace/contract/opp/51ea69f731844ab4a8a6ab09e96a7326/view
 
CJohnston said:
"The Air Force Life Cycle Management Center (AFLCMC) Armament Directorate (EB) is hosting a classified Industry Day to provide information and requirements to interested vendors regarding the new Air Force Longe Range Weapon (AFLRW). The AFLRW is aimed at addressing the next generation of Air-Launched Standoff Weapon variants in line with Department of War priorities. AFLRW may select multiple vendors for both the Air-to-Air (A/A) and Air-to-Surface (A/S) variants with a focus on A/A solutions for Initial Operational Capability."

"Both variants will have a threshold minimum range of 1,000 NM and be capable of striking respective A/A and A/S targets in Defense Planning Scenario 2.1 and 7.1 environments in a responsive manner. AFLRW will seek vendors for each variant’s initial production rounds to meet threshold requirements."

https://sam.gov/workspace/contract/opp/51ea69f731844ab4a8a6ab09e96a7326/view
Click to expand...
Hmm how do you detect aircraft from 1000 nm?
 

U.S. Reveals Range Goal For Future Air-To-Air Missile​

https://aviationweek.com/defense/mi.../us-reveals-range-goal-future-air-air-missile
The U.S. Air Force defined a 1,000-nm (1,150-mi.) range goal for a future air-launched ballistic missile that will be developed with air-to-air and air-to-surface variants, newly released solicitation documents show. The Air Force requested $49.5 million in the fiscal 2027 budget submission to...
Click to expand...

https://twitter.com/x/status/2069927274816721178
View: https://x.com/__CJohnston__/status/2069927274816721178?s=20
 
Sferrin said:
Why would anybody ever specify a range requirement without warhead? (Also, they aren't flying a thousand miles with THAT.)
Click to expand...
Because they did not specify a warhead. And because range can drastically change with warhead size.
 
Big_Zukini said:
Because they did not specify a warhead. And because range can drastically change with warhead size.
Click to expand...
Uhm, that's not how that works. Or do you really think they mean the 1000 miles is without a warhead? I mean I don't think even the USN is that stupid.
 
Sferrin said:
Uhm, that's not how that works. Or do you really think they mean the 1000 miles is without a warhead? I mean I don't think even the USN is that stupid.
Click to expand...
Not entirely without. But perhaps some very minimal one.
There's a range of warheads useful for such missile - from very light ones against semi soft targets, to heavy penetrating ones.
 
I’m with Scott on this one. I can’t think of a reason to describe a weapon’s range while assuming there’s no kerblamo unit up front.

Certainly the range will differ depending on the launch platform, flight profile, sensor type, warhead type, and whatnot.
 
Big_Zukini said:
Not entirely without. But perhaps some very minimal one.
There's a range of warheads useful for such missile - from very light ones against semi soft targets, to heavy penetrating ones.
Click to expand...
Yeah, but the requirement is going to be, "1000 miles with the warhead we want".
 
More on it:

Air Force Eyes New Stand-Off Missile with 1,000-Nautical Mile Range​

https://www.airandspaceforces.com/air-force-eyes-new-stand-off-missile-1000-mile-range/
If selected, the USAF first wants vendors who can produce a fully assembled and tested round that’s ready to use, managing both the subsystem design and manufacturing that meets Weapons Open System Architecture and Government Reference Architecture requirements.

Secondarily, the service wants the vendor to act as the “master integrator,” according to the notice, integrating various subsystems into the actual missile shell.
Click to expand...
The notice does not specify what type of aircraft they expect to carry the AFLRW.

It does say that the missiles should be able to strike targets in Defense Planning Scenario 2.1 and 7.1 environments in a responsive manner.
Click to expand...
Unlike many recent public Air Force munitions efforts, this notice does not stress affordability.
Click to expand...
 
Big_Zukini said:
1,000nm range I assume is sans warhead.
Click to expand...
As stated 1000 nmi is the threshold for both A/A and A/G variants which mean both must achieve this.
Anyhow, I already figured 1000 km was possible for 6th gen fighters although externally. This certainlly raises the bar by ~1.9x
Air breathing definitely gets it to 1.5x so it gotta be a glider vehicle or similar on top.
But apparently hypersonic speed is required. This reinforces the glider angle otherwise I doubt this range could be met.
 
Seragina said:
As stated 1000 nmi is the threshold for both A/A and A/G variants which mean both must achieve this.
Anyhow, I already figured 1000 km was possible for 6th gen fighters although externally. This certainlly raises the bar by ~1.9x
Air breathing definitely gets it to 1.5x so it gotta be a glider vehicle or similar on top.
But apparently hypersonic speed is required. This reinforces the glider angle otherwise I doubt this range could be met.
Click to expand...
It'll likely use an exo-atmospheric ballistic trajectory followed by a glide, like ARRW. That way you use the most efficient trajectory for range and escape drag altogether for a large part of the trip. What's difficult to ascertain is how much different it will be to ARRW, which is already scheduled to get a terminal seeker and datalink for moving targets in Inc 2.
 
You wouldn’t need a conventional warhead if it used a HTK terminal stage - maybe a tiny warhead with lethality enhancers.
 
CJohnston said:
"The Air Force Life Cycle Management Center (AFLCMC) Armament Directorate (EB) is hosting a classified Industry Day to provide information and requirements to interested vendors regarding the new Air Force Longe Range Weapon (AFLRW). The AFLRW is aimed at addressing the next generation of Air-Launched Standoff Weapon variants in line with Department of War priorities. AFLRW may select multiple vendors for both the Air-to-Air (A/A) and Air-to-Surface (A/S) variants with a focus on A/A solutions for Initial Operational Capability."

"Both variants will have a threshold minimum range of 1,000 NM and be capable of striking respective A/A and A/S targets in Defense Planning Scenario 2.1 and 7.1 environments in a responsive manner. AFLRW will seek vendors for each variant’s initial production rounds to meet threshold requirements."

https://sam.gov/workspace/contract/opp/51ea69f731844ab4a8a6ab09e96a7326/view
Click to expand...

It's funny, there was a program almost exactly like this back in the 1980s, the Air Force wanted nothing to do with it and came up with their own solution (that was destined to fail, while the other program had already been flight tested).
 
quellish said:
It's funny, there was a program almost exactly like this back in the 1980s, the Air Force wanted nothing to do with it and came up with their own solution (that was destined to fail, while the other program had already been flight tested).
Click to expand...
ASALM?
 
Training_Dummy said:
I asked Opus 4.5 about an airlaunched air-to-air version of SWERVE/LORAINE and it black flagged me…
Click to expand...

Why would you do that when it would just use data from…here?

The larger program that encompassed SWERVE and LORRAINE was Ballistic Intercept Missile. There were ground and air launched variants planned.
 
jsport said:
this notice does not stress affordability.

u can fire these all day because ur not paying for a warhead then. :) Hit to kill only Hit to kill only.
Click to expand...
A 1000km range is stretching the fuel/propulsor capabilities, therefore no space/volume might remain for a warhead.

Investing in warhead less missiles is always a financial risk. As in, if a projectile reachs a tgt but has little effect, is it worth it?
 
Where does it say that this is a ballistic missile or rocket etc.?

Could this just be a two stage weapon like X-68A Longshot? i.e. cruise to target and release "submunitions"
 
My takes on this:
- It will be far too big to fire from F-35s or F-22s internal bays, so maybe F-47... But I believe it will be probably from B-21s.
- The aircraft carrying the missile will not be the one detecting the target in 95 to 99% of circumstances.
- It will instead rely on data-link provided by high-value sensors well beyond most enemy ordnances (AMTI satellites & aircraft) and by drones and expendable sensors close to the target.
- I could see the missile being a two-stage weapon with a quasi-ballistic booster and a cruise vehicle.

In any way, I am not surprised by this choice, we see where China is going, we see the works on AMTI satellites and all those networked sensors. HVTs are a critical part of modern air ops and the sword tech is quickly catching up to them so they will have to adapt or perish.

Question we may ask is about the AWACS themselves: how can they stay relevant if they are now the targets of 1000nm / 1800km ranged missiles ? I believe we may see three types of AWACS in the mid-term future:
  • UHF-radar equipped AEW&C, compensating the inaccuracy of their radar through sensor fusion.
    • This, I believe, will take a few decades, but Thales' recently unveiled DeepFinder may hint at future possibilities.
    • They may, alongside other HVTs, be escorted by fighters or even dedicated "airborne protection aircraft". Something like an airliner turned into an EW / DEW / missile truck for the sole purpose of downing incoming missiles.
  • Agile AEW&C, cheaper options that operate closer to the frontline, probably without the command function. (think GlobalEye or other such systems).
  • Attritionable / Expandable AMTI nodes, without any command function. These would mostly carry relatively inexpensive radars or IRST and work like a glow stick you throw to illuminate a dark corner...
Regarding Airborne Protection Aircraft, I have not seen many similar concepts, but I believe we are going to see such aircraft deployed alongside tankers and others HVTs. Probably in tandem with a mix of fighters, attritionable drones and expandables drones.


Of course, do correct me if you believe I am wrong. I may be quite ignorant on some things and what I talk about may be locked behind a few years or decades or R&D.
 
Has the USAF specified a speed requirement? Air to ground could theoretically just use a turbofan, though my impression is that this is to be a more responsive weapon. A2A would pretty much require something supersonic.

I cannot imagine anything with range and speed will be cheap or light. About the most promising technology I can think of would be an RDE, since there are few moving parts and air breathing with a liquid fuel provides more fuel mass efficiency. But a thousand is a lot for anything over high subsonic.
 
Seragina said:
As stated 1000 nmi is the threshold for both A/A and A/G variants which mean both must achieve this.
Anyhow, I already figured 1000 km was possible for 6th gen fighters although externally. This certainlly raises the bar by ~1.9x
Air breathing definitely gets it to 1.5x so it gotta be a glider vehicle or similar on top.
But apparently hypersonic speed is required. This reinforces the glider angle otherwise I doubt this range could be met.
Click to expand...
A semi-ballistic missile with terminal guidance could. And it would get there faster than the glider.
 
AW&ST reported the SWERVE reaching Mach 15 causing plasma accumulation preventing convenyional communications to the vehicle. The article stated the vehicle would need the width of the US to make a turn.
 
jsport said:
AW&ST reported the SWERVE reaching Mach 15 causing plasma accumulation preventing convenyional communications to the vehicle. The article stated the vehicle would need the width of the US to make a turn..
Click to expand...
Then don't reach Mach 15.
 
Keep in mind we are talking about an airlaunched missile not something approaching ICBM esque.
It needs to be sized to fit into the bomber's bay or at most B52 external pylon.
Also it cannot be pure balistics and be mistaken as nucelar tipped BM as stated requirement for the advanced hypersonic weapon programs.
I presume it has to be no more than 20 ft as the preferred size.
As I've said I initially thought CPS but it's too big at 34.5" in diameter and about 400" long.
The flight most likely is the same as for the CPS with the Common-Hypersonic Glide Body:
Comparison_ENG.png
 
According to Gaggle AI "Sandia Winged Energetic Re-Entry Vehicle (SWERVE) operational capabilities are officially classified. I know what I read in Aviation Leak because I was stunned for sometime on how destructive that shock wave could be. Recalling the article stated there would be no need for a warhead on such a speedy wpn.
 
Seragina said:
Keep in mind we are talking about an airlaunched missile not something approaching ICBM esque.
It needs to be sized to fit into the bomber's bay or at most B52 external pylon.
Click to expand...
Air-launched ArcLight.

"According to DARPA, the ArcLight program was to develop a high-tech missile based on the booster stack of the current SM-3 and equipped with a hypersonic glide vehicle capable of carrying a 100–200 lb (45–90 kg) warhead.[2] The configuration would allow ships carrying the ArcLight missile to strike targets 2,300 miles (3,700 km) away from the launch point. The missile would replace the aging Tomahawk cruise missile and could be fired out of the standard vertical launching systems available on many surface ships.[1] Additionally, the ArcLight missile would be capable of launch from air and submarine assets capable of carrying the BGM-109.[2]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ArcLight_(missile)
 
Seragina said:
Keep in mind we are talking about an airlaunched missile not something approaching ICBM esque.
It needs to be sized to fit into the bomber's bay or at most B52 external pylon.
Click to expand...
Inside the bomb bay on a rotary launcher means 25" wide and 18" tall, by about 21ft long. And a max weight of about 3000lbs.

External carriage would be ARRW sized, give or take.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom