US Air Force Air-Launched Ballistic Missile (ALBM)

[bring_it_on]

The US Air Force intends to initiate an Air Launched Ballistic Missile effort in Fiscal Year 2027 as an extension of its Hypersonic portfilio currently featuring the ARRW and HACM.

Meanwhile, the ALBM program will focus on developing a new air-launched, long-range capability that complement the Air Force’s rapid-strike portfolio — which includes the baseline AGM-183A and upcoming HACM.

Details on what additional capabilities ALBM will have were also not detailed in the service’s budget request, but the Air Force spokesperson said the weapon will feature “unique trajectory profiles to address distinct target sets.”

“ALBM will provide combatant commanders with an additional capability to address distinct target sets, ensuring a highly diversified and resilient strike capability,” they added.

The new program is currently in early development stages, and its schedule will be set as the service finalizes its requirements and acquisition strategy, the spokesperson said.

https://defensescoop.com/2026/05/13/air-force-wants-to-develop-follow-on-to-arrw-hypersonic-missile/

 

[Seragina]

Was about time. Years behind but better than never.
I assume this can be carried by fighters, although, oversized for the F16.
And this is the destructive counter part to the quick strike hypersonic but low explosive rounds.

 

[bring_it_on]

I know the DOD has developed a new affinity for startups delivering strike weapons with puny warheads, but what could be achieved if the Air Force or Lockheed built an ALBM around the existing ARRW solid rocket motor paired with the ATACMS warhead? It'd be heavier and larger than JTACMS, but should still come in around 5,000 lbs — light enough for carriage on the F-15E and externally on the F-35A. A flight qualified air launched SRM (25.5-25.9 inch diameter 140 inch length) probably saves a few years of developing something from scratch or adapting a ground launched solution for AL. Wonder whether they could produce it at a substantially lower cost than HACM but producing at high volume should not really be a big issue considering supply chain comonalities can be achieved with ARRW and ATACMS/PrSM programs.

 

[VishnuOsiris]

Agreed. An air-launched ATACMS and PrSM are natural layups here. I would also anticipate Israeli weapons such as Rocks, Air-Lora and Rampage to be included in selection.

 

[Josh_TN]

PrSM maybe. ATACMs is too large and the others not made in US. But right now Castelion seems to be the golden child of all the services…a little unclear to me why, but everyone has bought their pitch deck. If they can deliver in the quantity, time, and cost that they profess, it looks like they have cornered the market. I am suspicious of things that seem too good to be true.

 

[Ronny]

Finally, I said this years ago that US need some ALBM.

 

[bring_it_on]

Agreed. An air-launched ATACMS and PrSM are natural layups here. I would also anticipate Israeli weapons such as Rocks, Air-Lora and Rampage to be included in selection.

I think neither would be particularly great options here. PrSM lacks a significant warhead and isn't hypersonic. ATACMS would lack the range. Both are limited in length by MLRS pod and ground launcher dimensions which Air Force bombers and fighters aren't.

I see very little reason to remove an ARRW from a B-52/B-1 store and replace it with one ATACMS or PrSM derived weapon. Might as well build something that is at least sized similarly to maximize range, payload and speed without sacrificing magazine. Both ARRW and HACM seem to be in the 20 ft class length wise.

 

[HaveVoid]

Is it expressly stated that this new ALBM effort would be aimed at the same B-52/B-1 ARRW size and not something that perhaps slots in somewhat smaller? Something that could perhaps be carried by F-15EXs or externally by F-35s, F-16s, or in greater volumes than ARRW on the larger platforms?

Israel has seemingly achieved great effects with their smaller sized ALBMs in recent conflicts - could this be looking at something more in that vein?

 

[JS23]

What about LRHW? Army and Navy are both fast-tracking it as much as they can, with the Navy in particular seemingly hanging their high-end surface warfare strategy on it.

Would it be feasible to sling one of those onto an airborne platform, maybe after subtracting one of its boost phases?

 

[Ronny]

Ways too big and platform limited.

 

[bring_it_on]

Is it expressly stated that this new ALBM effort would be aimed at the same B-52/B-1 ARRW size and not something that perhaps slots in somewhat smaller? Something that could perhaps be carried by F-15EXs or externally by F-35s, F-16s, or in greater volumes than ARRW on the larger platforms?

Israel has seemingly achieved great effects with their smaller sized ALBMs in recent conflicts - could this be looking at something more in that vein?

No not yet anyway since the program effort starts in FY27. But you would image that the hypersonic portfolio in which this is included would look at form factors that offer similar bomber carriage requirements. An AL-BM dimensionally similar to the 25 inch dia , 20 ft ARRW should be able to be carried by the F-15E/EX and even externally on the F-35A. Obviously dependent on how much of a warhead it would have but I really don't think it would need more than 500 lbs class to do most of what the AF may want it to do.

What about LRHW?

The Air Force's LRHW's HGV derived weapon was the Hypersonic Conventional Strike Weapon (HCSW). It was supposed to be larger than the ARRW so I don't think reviving it would provide the sort complementary capability the USAF may envision for the ARRW and HACM.

 

[Scott Kenny]

the Air Force spokesperson said the weapon will feature “unique trajectory profiles to address distinct target sets.”

That sounds less like a ballistic and more like a rocket-powered hypersonic.

 

[VishnuOsiris]

That sounds less like a ballistic and more like a rocket-powered hypersonic.

Re: "the Air Force spokesperson said the weapon will feature “unique trajectory profiles to address distinct target sets.”

TBH this sounds like corporate-speak for ballistic missiles.

 

[Seragina]

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.

I did think it might be more similar to CPS than ARRW. But being exo-atmospheric & ballistic limits course adjustment compared to conventional.
Flight time could be up to 20min. Can a glider maneuver and chase down a target over a distance of ~300+ nm?

You wouldn’t need a conventional warhead if it used a HTK terminal stage - maybe a tiny warhead with lethality enhancers.

Depends. HTK is certainly sufficient for an aircraft in flight but what if
the target is an AWACS still on the ground and taxiing? Unlike being hit midflight it won't break apart and could be repaired.
While chosing to fire the A/G version might miss it after it made it into the air.
Some form of fragmentation or rods or bands might be an option. Incendary effect is a given for all.

 

[Sferrin]

I did think it might be more similar to CPS than ARRW. But being exo-atmospheric & ballistic limits course adjustment compared to conventional.
Flight time could be up to 20min. Can a glider maneuver and chase down a target over a distance of ~300+ nm?

Depends. HTK is certainly sufficient for an aircraft in flight but what if
the target is an AWACS still on the ground and taxiing? Unlike being hit midflight it won't break apart and could be repaired.
While chosing to fire the A/G version might miss it after it made it into the air.
Some form of fragmentation or rods or bands might be an option. Incendary effect is a given for all.

Or just use tungsten buckshot around an HE core. Think M1147 AMP round.