JASSM-XR (Extra Extended Range)

[kqcke for you]

Everything We Just Learned About The Supersized AGM-158 XR Stealth Cruise Missile

Lockheed's XR variant of the JASSM family of missiles is stretched to accommodate more fuel, giving it a range that should approach or exceed that of the Tomahawk.

www.twz.com

So black JASSM's it is

 

[NMaude]

So black JASSM's it is

That is no doubt for publicity purposes only, the LM video I posted showed that the production missiles are painted a low-visibility pale-grey.

 

[zjz]

Gladiator Technologies has been awarded a multi-year contract by Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control to supply the G300D gyroscope for the Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile (JASSM®) program

Gladiator Technologies Awarded Multi-year Contract for Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile (JASSM) Program - Gladiator Technologies

Gladiator Technologies awarded multi-year contract for JASSM program by Lockheed Martin

gladiatortechnologies.com

 

[kqcke for you]

That is no doubt for publicity purposes only, the LM video I posted showed that the production missiles are painted a low-visibility pale-grey.

Twz qouted that all future JASSM get that black colour coating.

 

[Josh_TN]

AGM-158C-3 etc. Longer range in same form factor.

The XR would be an AGM-158D or E.

AGM-158B2 I believe had a redesigned wing for a modest range increase. B3 apparently was the M Code update. D will be those improvements plus weapon datalink and possibly other changes to increase capabilities against moving targets.

XR is brand new and has no known designation, though I would presume it would be E were it adopted by USAF. It appears right now to be a self funded concept, not a USAF requirement.

 

[Kiltonge]

Twz qouted that all future JASSM get that black colour coating.View attachment 741180

That's odd considering the RAF found gloss black to be the *most* visible finish for its trainer fleet:

"In trials this proved to be the most visible colour against all daytime skies."

 

[Josh_TN]

That's odd considering the RAF found gloss black to be the *most* visible finish for its trainer fleet:

"In trials this proved to be the most visible colour against all daytime skies."

It might be a coating that is harder to detect in IR. That seems the more likely bandwidth it would be observed in via IRST or similar missile warning/detection systems.

 

[Forest Green]

What we need is some solid stats for this missile.

 

[Forest Green]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1835981316426256772

View: https://x.com/AirPowerNEW1/status/1835981316426256772

 

[Forest Green]

Looks like it will be a 1,000lb warhead.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1835800699545739586

View: https://x.com/AirPowerNEW1/status/1835800699545739586

Everything We Just Learned About The Supersized AGM-158 XR Stealth Cruise Missile

Lockheed's XR variant of the JASSM family of missiles is stretched to accommodate more fuel, giving it a range that should approach or exceed that of the Tomahawk.

www.twz.com

The XR clearly sports the familiar trapezoidal cross-section and low-observable shaping of the JASSM and LRASM, but this new variant is substantially larger via a stretched fuselage. The XR is a substantial leap in proportions compared to its predecessors, allowing it carry much more gas, as well as a sizable 1,000-pound-class warhead.

 

[kqcke for you]

Looks like it will be a 1,000lb warhead.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1835800699545739586

View: https://x.com/AirPowerNEW1/status/1835800699545739586

Yeah thats what it already got.... ~1000Ib or around ~450kgs

 

[Cjc]

Do we have any idea what the stretch amount was.

 

[kqcke for you]

Do we have any idea what the stretch amount was.

Not as far as i know but the statement of the F-16 gives ous some indications. It either between 3500-5000Ibs (as far as i know the inboard stations aren't with 1760 interfaces) so it maybe over 3500Ibs (around 50% more weight) or Long enough to create some kind of danger for the F-16 as its maybe danger close to the control surfaces

 

[Cjc]

Not as far as i know but the statement of the F-16 gives ous some indications. It either between 3500-5000Ibs (as far as i know the inboard stations aren't with 1760 interfaces) so it maybe over 3500Ibs (around 50% more weight) or Long enough to create some kind of danger for the F-16 as its maybe danger close to the control surfaces

Must be massive then, consdering I've seen some were on this site plans for the f-16 to carry two tomahawks.

 

[kqcke for you]

Must be massive then, consdering I've seen some were on this site plans for the f-16 to carry two tomahawks.

Probaly was MRASM which is only 4.88m Long and 2200Ib heavy

 

[NMaude]

Increasing the production rate to 1,100 AGM-158s a year should have a dramatic decrease in the unit price.

 

[TomS]

Probaly was MRASM which is only 4.88m Long and 2200Ib heavy

The Air Force MRASM (AGM-109H/K) was bigger than the Navy version (AGM-109L) -- 5.84 m (19 ft 2 in) and 1200 kg (2700 lb).

Raytheon AGM/BGM/RGM/UGM-109 Tomahawk

A couple of pics here, but Convair may have been very optimistic about those outer hardpoints:

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/agm-109-bgm-109-tomahawk-gryphon.8698/page-2#post-612301

As for JASSM-XR not fitting on the F-16, I think it has to be CG or fit issues, not just weight.

 

[kqcke for you]

The Air Force MRASM (AGM-109/K) was bigger than the Navy version (AGM-109L) -- 5.84 m (19 ft 2 in) and 1200 kg (2700 lb).

Ah yeah both count as MRASM.

As for JASSM-XR not fitting on the F-16, I think it has to be CG or fit issues, not just weight.

Also possible. Like i said maybe its just too long for example getting to close to the horizontal tails.

 

[Scott Kenny]

What are the pylon weight limits on the F-16?

The way they worded the sentence makes it sound like the XR is too heavy for an F-16, not too big.

 

[Scott Kenny]

As for JASSM-XR not fitting on the F-16, I think it has to be CG or fit issues, not just weight.

I doubt that, because the XR's CG is still between the drop lugs, just like a 2000lb bomb.

 

[kqcke for you]

As far as i know the inboard are 4500Ibs and midboard are 3500Ibs but those inboard may not have the 1760 interface

 

[so_i_started_blastin]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1835981316426256772

View: https://x.com/AirPowerNEW1/status/1835981316426256772

It's worth pointing out that they've already received a contract specifically for this work, so it's not entirely self-funded.

Contracts for September 10, 2018

AIR FORCE The Boeing Co., Seattle, Washington, has been awarded a $2,858,701,741 modification (P00141) to contract FA8625-11-C-6600 for lot 4 production KC-46 aircraft, initial spares, and support

www.defense.gov

 

[kqcke for you]

What are the pylon weight limits on the F-16?

The way they worded the sentence makes it sound like the XR is too heavy for an F-16, not too big.

But that means that the airframe of XR has to be around as heavy as an existing JASSM-ER just to get even Close to 3500Ibs if we assume those inboard stations are out.

 

[Scott Kenny]

As far as i know the inboard are 4500Ibs and midboard are 3500Ibs but those inboard may not have the 1760 interface

Hrm.... 3500lbs seems a bit heavy, but could be right.

 

[zjz]

Lockheed Unveils Longer-Range AGM-158XR | Aviation Week Network

The missile was unveiled Sept. 16 at the Air & Space Forces Association’s Air, Space & Cyber Conference.

aviationweek.com

If you look at history, the AGM-86B was a substantially stretched of the original AGM-86A .... and when the LRSO was in competition, many guessed that a stretched JASSM could fill the nuclear role ..... so all this is nothing new .....

It feels the whole "reveal" is just a marketing thingy ..... as much as we can made educated guess into its dimensions based on all the facts on hand, all still remains "unconfirmed" .....

 

[TAOG]

LM say F-18 could also carry this new XR, so it should not heavier than 480 gallon fuel tank? (~3300 lb)

But F-16 could carry 3500 lb LORA, so wonder why F-16 could not carry but F-18 can?

 

[totoro]

Opinion: The usaf f16 cant carry it, while some other f16s can.
Usaf f16s are old and have not been modernized to include the inner pylon wired for weapons communication.
Usaf also has plenty of other planes for the mission, which could handle it even better, so usaf does not see it worthwhile to modify the existing f16 so they can use the missile.

 

[Scott Kenny]

LM say F-18 could also carry this new XR, so it should not heavier than 480 gallon fuel tank? (~3300 lb)

But F-16 could carry 3500 lb LORA, so wonder why F-16 could not carry but F-18 can?

Per a 1995 reference, the F-16s pylons are 2500lbs for the inboard and 2000lbs for the center wing position.


Some of the F-18 pylons are rated for 3500lbs.

 

[NMaude]

Opinion: The usaf f16 cant carry it, while some other f16s can.

Maybe, maybe not, I don't know enough to say one way or the other.

On another note it is F-16 NOT f-16.

 

[kqcke for you]

Because it just somehow doesn't make sense for it to have +3500Ibs.