SiAW (Stand-in Attack Weapon)

Someone posted a picture of “SiAW” on tanknet, linking wiki’s article. Would I be correct that this just an AGM-88G image? The release aircraft is an F-16, so it is USAF, but IIRC they bought some AGM-88G too as filler until SiAW came online.

ETA: AFAIK there is no public picture or description of SiAW outside it being known to be based off the AARGM-ER.
 
Josh_TN said:
Someone posted a picture of “SiAW” on tanknet, linking wiki’s article. Would I be correct that this just an AGM-88G image? The release aircraft is an F-16, so it is USAF, but IIRC they bought some AGM-88G too as filler until SiAW came online.

ETA: AFAIK there is no public picture or description of SiAW outside it being known to be based off the AARGM-ER.
Click to expand...
imo there's a decent chance the siaw will be physically identical to the previous missiles just with brand new state of the art guidance systems and perhaps a bit longer/wider or a better engine for range
 
my gestalt is an effective ground attack missile must be electronically resilient in terms of the guidance/seek/fuze chain and physically resilient, combining aggressive, agile maneuvering coupled with velocity modulation, optimized by AI, in the terminal phase.

In other words, a profile that demands a mathematically challenging solution from an interceptor POV, esp when applied across a heterogenous salvo that combines other effectors, with TOT exquisitely phased and tailored for the targets.
 
Training_Dummy said:
my gestalt is an effective ground attack missile must be electronically resilient in terms of the guidance/seek/fuze chain and physically resilient, combining aggressive, agile maneuvering coupled with velocity modulation, optimized by AI, in the terminal phase.

In other words, a profile that demands a mathematically challenging solution from an interceptor POV, esp when applied across a heterogenous salvo that combines other effectors, with TOT exquisitely phased and tailored for the targets.
Click to expand...
Or, alternatively (no bad ideas), you could just maintain a Mach 3 straight line to the target, especially if the target has no local point defenses.
 
Andreas thank you! I knew such a photo existed and that I had seen it before but couldn’t recall it well enough.

So the Allegheny bootleggers are pumping out 300 SiAW type missiles per year. Not bad. Wonder how much flex capacity they might have if components and subsystems weren’t limiting.
 
Josh_TN said:
Someone posted a picture of “SiAW” on tanknet, linking wiki’s article. Would I be correct that this just an AGM-88G image? The release aircraft is an F-16, so it is USAF, but IIRC they bought some AGM-88G too as filler until SiAW came online.

ETA: AFAIK there is no public picture or description of SiAW outside it being known to be based off the AARGM-ER.
Click to expand...
Seems that SiAW too is an anti-radar missile but developed for the USAF rather than the USN, which uses the similar AARGM-ER. SiAW is basically a slightly tweaked AARGM-ER with upgraded warhead and fuse.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1982447129944580111
View: https://x.com/AirPowerNEW1/status/1982447129944580111
 
Andreas Parsch said:
Already taken.

AGM-88H was allocated in 2020 to a missile from Raytheon for "USAF/FMS". So it's apparently a HARM variant for a USAF-managed Foreign Military Sales program. I don't know further details.
Click to expand...

When I checked the AGM-88 HARM wikipedia page it didn't have the AGM-88H version listed. I suppose it is some sort of FMS version of the AGM-88E.
 
bring_it_on said:
That's SiAW's starting point. Not where the AF wants to evolve it to. It will eventually shape up to be a multi mission weapon.
Click to expand...
What other changes would it need? AFAIK AGM-88E already has an anti ship capability. What else is there? Moving land targets? I kinda assumed SiAW would have that out of the box.
 
Josh_TN said:
What other changes would it need? AFAIK AGM-88E already has an anti ship capability. What else is there? Moving land targets? I kinda assumed SiAW would have that out of the box.
Click to expand...
Hot and dumb take, but what about a secondary air to air capability. Then you technically retain a full complement of air to air missiles. It could be the missile for non maneuverable targets.
 
Reddington777 said:
Hot and dumb take, but what about a secondary air to air capability. Then you technically retain a full complement of air to air missiles. It could be the missile for non maneuverable targets.
Click to expand...
Probably only a software change at this point, yes. Though probably with envelope restrictions as you suggest.
 
Yes, this is where I think the AF is planning to go with this. SiAW is leveraging digital design and WOSA since its inception and the AF has in the past spoken about fielding multi mission variants of weapons. The guidance package for it is also expected to get upgraded as the air force matures its siaw offering beyond the initial variants. Increased maneuverability over AARGM is one of the things NG highlights for AARGM-ER. We also don't really have a comprehensive list of changes AF is seeking for SiAW as it transitions from interim to enduring weapon configuration. The few we have come from statements made in conferences and a small number of solicitations.
 
Last edited:
joshjosh said:
https://breakingdefense.com/2026/03/air-force-seeks-additional-vendors-for-radar-killing-missile/
I wonder if this opportunity is basically aimed at Lockheed's Mako
Click to expand...
The emphasis is on "similar" and "export".
I see "similar" as potentially cheaper as well as larger supply chain availability. The export bit is so the AARGM-ER won't have to be shared when inventory gets low.
The Mako is a SiAW alternative. And there's plenty competition, hence, alternatinves around coming soon here.
 
Forest Green said:
Hope they do an air-launched PrSM, that just makes so much sense.
Click to expand...
Would a PrSM fit within an F-35 weapon bay? I thought SiAW had F-35 internal carriage as a requirement - would this be within the realm of the possible, dimensionally speaking?
 
Won't fit in the F35B but it might be a tiny bit too long for safe drop clearance. I'm not sure about the wings here whether they are folded or not. And it's unclear about its weight. Either way it would need a new modified casing and wiring first, as well as safe ignition design.
 
HaveVoid said:
Would a PrSM fit within an F-35 weapon bay? I thought SiAW had F-35 internal carriage as a requirement - would this be within the realm of the possible, dimensionally speaking?
Click to expand...
Probably not. F-35 bays are pretty cramped already and PrSM is a bit girthier at 17 inches. External carry would be the only option.

Come to think of it, it would take a dedicated airceaft capable of carrying LRASMs internally to maybe fit a PrSM
 
Forest Green said:
AARGM-ER/SiAW is 4.06m, PrSM is 4.0m.
Click to expand...
Reddington777 said:
Probably not. F-35 bays are pretty cramped already and PrSM is a bit girthier at 17 inches. External carry would be the only option.

Come to think of it, it would take a dedicated airceaft capable of carrying LRASMs internally to maybe fit a PrSM
Click to expand...
Apparently PrSM doesn't feature foldable tail surfaces (see screenshot/video)... Wiki says "17 in diameter". I wonder what the wingspan is.
Screenshot 2026-03-09 180145.png
View: https://youtu.be/28zfSkhbSFA?si=xp3h3GXlnI2bcX4s
 
Forest Green said:
Hope they do an air-launched PrSM, that just makes so much sense.
Click to expand...

This has been said a few times before. Why would it make a lot of sense relative to competing investments?

  • HACM offers significantly increased velocity, and its much lower flight altitude and trajectory makes it significantly more survivable. Air Force is beginning flight tests this year.
  • ARRW is probably still not dead
  • AARGM-ER / SIAW fits internally on the F-35. You probably won't be ablet o get the PrSM to fit without significant re-design.
  • A 13" MAKO fits inside the AF and Navy F-35's but it hasn't received funding.
  • The AF has a Stand Off Attack Weapon program, but that would likely require a multi-mode seeker similar to that on the AARGM-ER / SiAW. PrSM does not have that.
  • As far as I can tell, PrSM does not have a warhead that is unique enough to be the reason why the USAF should adopt it. An anti-ship ballsitic missile in the $2-3 million AUR range should probably have a more capable AShM mission optimized WH. PrSM Increment 2 lacks that.

Given opportunity cost, I think there are far greater priorities in the AF's long range strike portfolio that would be more beneficial in the near term. In the mid to long term I do see there being room for a more affordable ALBM and a larger diameter, extended range SiAW. The Navy's Blackbeard Air Launch program seems to be focusing on the former (Seems similar to the Israeli Rampage but apparently it will have a seeker upgrade as well) while the SOAW focuses on the latter future requirements. There I think a 17" diameter weapon could be a contender. But probably better to upsize AARGM-ER with an identical to AARGM-ER guidance section. It takes a lot of time, effort and money to replicate the AARGM-ERs guidance system testing and development
 
bring_it_on said:
  • HACM offers significantly increased velocity, and its much lower flight altitude and trajectory makes it significantly more survivable. Air Force is beginning flight tests this year.
Click to expand...
Yeah this is what I'd like to see as well, though it's doubtful that HACM would fit into an F-35 bay either.. An air-launched PrSM could be more producible, but I doubt it's going to be cheap enough to make a difference.

I think only dedicated strike aircraft (aka F/A-XX) would bother carrying it internally. At its current 300 NM range, an air launched version could possibly achieve up to 400 NM? Having the B-21, B-1 and F/A-XX carry it would make a whole lot more sense than the F-35.

Even so, I'm not sure an air launched PrSM makes sense. Range wise, 400NM to me is an uncomfortable distance for un-stealthy configuration / aircraft to fight at not to mention they'll have to lug those weapons another few hundred NM to the launch point. It can be considered a long range stand-off weapon too, but I certainly not the range of HACM or ARRW. At this point, I too would rather like to see a longer ranged SiAW. That keeps the stand in force truly stand in while better and longer range weapons will equip the stand off force and they aren't being hamstrung by PrSM's range.
 
Last edited:
Reddington777 said:
Yeah this is what I'd like to see as well, though it's doubtful that HACM would fit into an F-35 bay either.. An air-launched PrSM could be more producible, but I doubt it's going to be cheap enough to make a difference.
Click to expand...
HACM will have enough stand off range to allow the stand off tactical force (F-15E, EX and possibly F-35 with ext. carriage) to contribute using it. Somewhere between 300 and 500 nautical miles.
 
Isn't this like obvious?
I mean all models and almost all (if not all) show the folding mechanism.
IMG_20260309_205425.jpg
This is also supported by math as an MFOM pod total width is 1.05m. that means each missile has less than 525mm because we also have to exclude 3 walls which seem to be atleast 10mm each.
So assuming 10mm for each wall (which is on the lower side) where left with 510mm of width from which atleast 430mm are used by the missiles diameter. We also know the missile has those in an X arrangement with 90° between them and we know a round about of the actual pod area which is <525mm × <720mm.
IMG_20260309_210600.jpg

While we don't know the missiles wingspan based on the images it seems to be atleast as mutch as its diameter if not more so its definitely exceeding our 95mm limit and needs to be folded in.
 
bring_it_on said:
The AF has a Stand Off Attack Weapon program, but that would likely require a multi-mode seeker similar to that on the AARGM-ER / SiAW. PrSM does not have that.
Click to expand...

PrSM increment 2 will introduce a terminal homing seeker (There's already space for it in its' nose).

Reddington777 said:
At its current 300 NM range, an air launched version could possibly achieve up to 400 NM?
Click to expand...

An air-launched PrSM is likely to have two-three times the launch range of the ground launched version.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom