JASSM-XR (Extra Extended Range)

Scott Kenny said:
AGM-158C-3 etc. Longer range in same form factor.

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

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 said:
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."
Click to expand...

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.
 
Looks like it will be a 1,000lb warhead.
https://twitter.com/x/status/1835800699545739586
View: https://x.com/AirPowerNEW1/status/1835800699545739586

zjz said:
https://www.twz.com/air/everything-...-supersized-agm-158-xr-stealth-cruise-missile
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
 
Cjc said:
Do we have any idea what the stretch amount was.
Click to expand...
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
 
kqcke for you said:
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
Click to expand...
Must be massive then, consdering I've seen some were on this site plans for the f-16 to carry two tomahawks.
 
Increasing the production rate to 1,100 AGM-158s a year should have a dramatic decrease in the unit price.
 
kqcke for you said:
Probaly was MRASM which is only 4.88m Long and 2200Ib heavy
Click to expand...

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).

https://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-109.html#_MRASM
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.
 
Last edited:
TomS said:
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).
Click to expand...
Ah yeah both count as MRASM.
TomS said:
As for JASSM-XR not fitting on the F-16, I think it has to be CG or fit issues, not just weight.
Click to expand...
Also possible. Like i said maybe its just too long for example getting to close to the horizontal tails.
 
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 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
https://aviationweek.com/defense/missile-defense-weapons/lockheed-unveils-longer-range-agm-158xr

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" .....
 
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?
 
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.
 
TAOG said:
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?
Click to expand...
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.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom