US Navy MACE (Multi-Mission Affordable Capacity Effector)

[quellish]

I don’t think they have revealed GL-blackbeard.

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/th...le-capacity-effector.42965/page-2#post-942803

 

[Sferrin]

Now that I think about it, 200 nm probably closer to real range because of the following reasons:
1- MACE requirement ask for something with range that can complimentary LRASM, and LRASM is known to have range around 200 nm (much shorter range than JASSM-ER)

Which is really strange given they have the same warhead.

 

[Josh_TN]

I always assumed that AGM-158C-1 had to occupy a lot of volume with antenna for its RF geolocation system, and that resulted in lower fuel load. C2 notably deleted that feature, so I would think it more JASSM-ER ranged. C3/LRASM-ER was to extend LRASM range while retaining the RF sensing capability (smaller electronics? Smaller warhead?). Not sure if that went into production; have not heard anything or tried to look for info in awhile.

 

[Ronny]

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/th...le-capacity-effector.42965/page-2#post-942803

as far as I know, these were supposed to be test articles, Casterlion have tested several different version of it in the past but they also said it not representative of final product.

Moreover,the Army explicitly says Phase 1 of Blackbeard-GL will begin with:

a “fixed-fin flight demonstration of the existing air-launched, extended-range Blackbeard design” fired from a modified MFOM rocket pod.

https://www.asafm.army.mil/Portals/...et/rdte/RDTE - Vol 2 - Budget Activity 4B.pdf

 

[Ronny]

Which is really strange given they have the same warhead.

It is plausible that JASSM-ER at high altitude to get its range whereas LRASM supposed to include sea skimming.
To make things more complicated there is also AGM-158C-3 LRASM-ER with more range, maybe to get it back closer to JASSM-ER. This version is purchase since FY2024

 

[Ronny]

I always assumed that AGM-158C-1 had to occupy a lot of volume with antenna for its RF geolocation system, and that resulted in lower fuel load. C2 notably deleted that feature, so I would think it more JASSM-ER ranged. C3/LRASM-ER was to extend LRASM range while retaining the RF sensing capability (smaller electronics? Smaller warhead?). Not sure if that went into production; have not heard anything or tried to look for info in awhile.

There are 3 version of LRASM that gone into production: LRASM 1, LRASM 1.1 and LRASM-ER C3
LRASM 1.1 allegedly also improve range compare to LRASM 1 but not to the level of LRASM-ER C3
MACE range is supposed to be complementary to LRASM 1.1

 

[Forest Green]

Those numbers don't mean anything given the hardware that has been displayed. The missile Castelion recently published pictures of is about 4 m long, which means it can fit in an MFOM pod or an F-35A/C IWB. The booster diameter is closer to 12 inches and the upper stage diameter is closer to 9 inches, so upper stage weight is about half of the booster's weight and overall mass is about 1,000 lbs, about the same as an AARGM-ER/SiAW. The 75 lbs warhead comes from the MACE RFI (https://sam.gov/opp/3a3d52dca5824a4da62e874f888764b2/view).

Thought the upper stage was 7in? I was going by this unless it's a different weapon.
Post #76
https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/th...ffordable-capacity-effector.42965/post-942803

If 9in, then the 1st stage is at least 14in, maybe 16-18in. If it's 9in for upper stage then it's definitely powered.

I always assumed that AGM-158C-1 had to occupy a lot of volume with antenna for its RF geolocation system, and that resulted in lower fuel load. C2 notably deleted that feature, so I would think it more JASSM-ER ranged. C3/LRASM-ER was to extend LRASM range while retaining the RF sensing capability (smaller electronics? Smaller warhead?). Not sure if that went into production; have not heard anything or tried to look for info in awhile.

The sensor would need to be huge to reduce range by that much. The seeker has to go in the nose, so how much size are we talking here?

 

[Ronny]

Thought the upper stage was 7in? I was going by this unless it's a different weapon.
Post #76
https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/th...ffordable-capacity-effector.42965/post-942803

If 9in, then the 1st stage is at least 14in, maybe 16-18in. If it's 9in for upper stage then it's definitely powered.


The sensor would need to be huge to reduce range by that much. The seeker has to go in the nose, so how much size are we talking here?

It plausible that they use big antenna to improve gain or let it track low frequency radar, maybe the size is roughly that of ASQ-213 pod.
I think the range reduction must be significant enough that they need to go through 2 different LRASM version (ver 1.1 and ver 3) to come back to JASSM-ER range

 

[Not James Stockdale]

Thought the upper stage was 7in? I was going by this unless it's a different weapon.
Post #76
https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/th...ffordable-capacity-effector.42965/post-942803

If 9in, then the 1st stage is at least 14in, maybe 16-18in. If it's 9in for upper stage then it's definitely powered.

On 20 Aug 2026, Castelion posted a tweet that said "Blackbeard unveiled" with this image attached.
View attachment 822168

I initially estimated the OAL of the vehicle at 4.2 m based on the size of the Remove Before Flight tags, then at 4.0 m if the distance between lugs is 30 inches. Based on those baselines, I got a 9.3 inch upper stage height and a 12.8 inch booster diameter.

The 7 inch seeker doesn't necessarily mean a 7 inch terminal stage. Maybe the nose taper on this vehicle requires a smaller seeker, maybe a smaller seeker is just cheaper to deploy without losing much effectiveness, or maybe Castelion is still keeping options open for an AMRAAM-sized missile.

 

[Seragina]

You guys are speculating out of proportion without knowing what's at hand specifically the tech(parts).

The seeker isn't a camera per se but an optical sensor array. Either the same or similar to THAAD. It's basically just a panel parallel to the window.

 

[Ronny]

You guys are speculating out of proportion without knowing what's at hand specifically the tech(parts).

The seeker isn't a camera per se but an optical sensor array. Either the same or similar to THAAD. It's basically just a panel parallel to the window.

Casterlion currently developing Ku band AESA seeker for 7 inches hypersonic missiles so the seeker for Blackbeard is likely that one
https://www.sbir.gov/portfolio/2332659

 

[Forest Green]

On 20 Aug 2026, Castelion posted a tweet that said "Blackbeard unveiled" with this image attached.
View attachment 822168

I initially estimated the OAL of the vehicle at 4.2 m based on the size of the Remove Before Flight tags, then at 4.0 m if the distance between lugs is 30 inches. Based on those baselines, I got a 9.3 inch upper stage height and a 12.8 inch booster diameter.

The 7 inch seeker doesn't necessarily mean a 7 inch terminal stage. Maybe the nose taper on this vehicle requires a smaller seeker, maybe a smaller seeker is just cheaper to deploy without losing much effectiveness, or maybe Castelion is still keeping options open for an AMRAAM-sized missile.

That ratio looks resonable having used Chrome Screen Ruler, although given standard missile diameters, 13.5in is a more commonly used diameter, so maybe 254mm and 343mm respectively for front and rear. That would then leave the front at ~1/3rd or more of overall mass.

It plausible that they use big antenna to improve gain or let it track low frequency radar, maybe the size is roughly that of ASQ-213 pod.
I think the range reduction must be significant enough that they need to go through 2 different LRASM version (ver 1.1 and ver 3) to come back to JASSM-ER range

Ships are huge though, so why would you need a radar dozens of times larger than an AAM radar? These are from Kh-35, Nirbhay and Harpoon for reference. An AShM radar seeker simply doesn't consume the extensive amount of real estate it would need to for a more than 2-fold reduction in range.

 

[Ronny]

Ships are huge though, so why would you need a radar dozens of times larger than an AAM radar? These are from Kh-35, Nirbhay and Harpoon for reference. An AShM radar seeker simply doesn't consume the extensive amount of real estate it would need to for a more than 2-fold reduction in range.

I don’t mean active radar seeker but passive radar seeker. Since LRASM was said to be equipped with a passive anti radiation seeker to help it attack target of opportunities. Bigger antenna improve accuracy

 

[Forest Green]

I don’t mean active radar seeker but passive radar seeker. Since LRASM was said to be equipped with a passive anti radiation seeker to help it attack target of opportunities. Bigger antenna improve accuracy

Also not that big. An active and passive example.
https://en.missilery.info/missile/rvv-cd/9b-1103m-200ps

I could see a large seeker array making some kind of difference in range, but more like a 10-20% reduction rather than 60%.

 

[Seragina]

If it's just about detection then direction is more important than signal quality. In the past multiple (5) antennas where used for exampe in the ALARM.

 

[Ronny]

Also not that big. An active and passive example.
https://en.missilery.info/missile/rvv-cd/9b-1103m-200ps

Of course you can make it small, but bigger antenna is needed for lower frequency. Now assuming US developed LRASM to deal with chinese destroyer, I would guess that the RF seeker is designed so that it can home on radar of any Chinese ship. And we know Type 52 series has a VHF radar. So unlike AARGM-ER, it maybe plausible that RF seeker on LRASM can even home on VHF frequency. That would explain its size

 

[Seragina]

Even with VHF requirement the antenna only needs to be about 17" long no need for a dish or any convoluted design.
Better gain could be done with a spiral form (and wrap it around the nose) as has been since day one for RWR. But that's not realy necessary. The antennas could be inside the wings for better arc triangulation or inside the fixed small fin on the sides of the nozzle.

The only reason to reduce fuel volume is to have different payload options like cluster that require more space than a single warhead.
Also note, the wings got changed for more range, too.

 

[quellish]

so this thread is already full of posts ignoring established and verifiable facts, so there is nothing worthwhile to contribute here, and it’s already going OT with discussions of LRASM which are only relevant (marginally) to the original MACE requirements, which are not relevant to the Blackbeard missile.

This should be moved to a more appropriate sections such as missiles.

 

[Ronny]

so this thread is already full of posts ignoring established and verifiable facts, so there is nothing worthwhile to contribute here,

At this point, the warhead weight, the launching platform, the shape and maybe the type of seeker it use are verifiable facts. The rest are still upto speculation, just because someone missed a few details because they haven’t kept up with the program doesn’t necessarily mean they have nothing useful to contribute to the discussion.

and it’s already going OT with discussions of LRASM which are only relevant (marginally) to the original MACE requirements, which are not relevant to the Blackbeard missile.
This should be moved to a more appropriate sections such as missiles.

Well, Blackbeard was choosen as the winner of MACE program so study MACE requirement could give some insight to capability of blackbeard. And since we have no idea about the internal arrangement of blackbeard or anything about its thrust, type of rocket booster it uses, the next alternative is maybe try to figure out the range of LRASM 1.1. It not like there a lot of public information at the moment

 

[quellish]

Well, Blackbeard was choosen as the winner of MACE program so study MACE requirement could give some insight to capability of blackbeard. And since we have no idea about the internal arrangement of blackbeard or anything about its thrust, type of rocket booster it uses, the next alternative is maybe try to figure out the range of LRASM 1.1. It not like there a lot of public information at the moment

Actually, as far as I can tell I’ve been the sole actual poster of information about the MACE requirements and how they have evolved AND Blackbeard, the chosen solution, which many fan boy posters have ignored, so I’ll stop.

These comments about “derp there isn’t a lot of public information” are easily proven false. Instead we have fan boy comments about dimensions and capabilities that are not supported by facts and hallucinations from humans including “ there are no photos of the ground launched version “ which is entirely false, as someone posts photos of obvious propulsion test vehicles from TMZ to “ prove their point”.

This is not conversation I will provide any new information to. You want to debate motor diameters and capabilities? Find it yourself,

 

[Ronny]

Actually, as far as I can tell I’ve been the inking actual poster of information about the MACE requirements and how they have eVOKVRF AND Blackbeard, the chosen solution, which many fan boy posters have ignored, silo I’ll stop.

Firstly, I do appreciate you sharing the information about Blackbeard’s Ku-band AESA and the CHyMERA warhead. Many of us had assumed that MACE used an IIR seeker because of the apparent seeker window.

Secondly, MACE requirements were posted by Forest Green on the first page of this thread. I’m not aware of any subsequent changes to those requirements. If you did indeed post information showing how the MACE requirements evolved and why they are no longer relevant to the LRASM 1.1 range comparison, I think that may have been in a different thread rather than this one.

These comments about “derp there isn’t a lot of public information” are easily proven false. I stead we have fan boy comments about dimensions and capabilities that are not supported by facts and hallucinations from humans that ci time across multiple posts-

We certainly don’t know its exact length, diameter, or internal arrangement. Even basic specifications such as its maximum range are subject to conflicting information, and its exact maximum velocity remains unknown.

including “ there are no photos of the ground launched version “ which is entirely false, as someone posts photos of obvious propulsion test vehicles from TMZ to “ prove their point.

This is not conversation I will provide any new information to. You want to debate motor dissenters and capabilities? Find it yourself,

No, I said Casterlion have not revealed GL-black beard. Sure they have done various test with different test article configurations, however, Casterlion themselves said that their test vehicle is not representative of final configuration


Besides, If you look at Fiscal year request of 2027, they literally said that funding in 2026 will be used to deliver a prototype proof of concept including fixed fin flight demonstration of the existing air launched Blackbeard. If that one is successful, FY2027 funding will be used to demonstrate a production representative weapon


The photo you posted earlier shows a test article. Castelion conducted this prototype vehicle launch at San Nicolas Island within the Point Mugu Sea Range on December 5, 2025, to collect performance data under operationally relevant conditions. But it not GL-blackbeard since it predate even the proof of concept launch that supposed to be done in FY2026
https://www.linkedin.com/posts/december-5th-2025-castelion-saved-its-share-7406480677308813312-p35_/