AGM-158 JASSM

AGM-158D is being procured this year as part of the lot 22 JASSM buy.
AGM-158B-3 is also apparently a thing that is going to be procured in 2025, with the D model outnumbering orders of the B model.
 

Attachments

  • 1710256805401822.png
    1710256805401822.png
    115.7 KB · Views: 43
HyFonic said:
AGM-158D is being procured this year as part of the lot 22 JASSM buy.
AGM-158B-3 is also apparently a thing that is going to be procured in 2025, with the D model outnumbering orders of the B model.
Click to expand...

Do we know what capabilities the D version has explicitly? I was under the impression that this version would include an M code GPS receiver (SABR?), the control surfaces changes that slightly extend range of the B3, and a datalink. One source mentioned that a coating changed to reduce signature was also in the works.

In any case, good to know the D is going to production so soon.
 
HyFonic said:
I believe this is one of the only documents that really discusses it at all, it's from the FY22 budget.
Click to expand...

Well t he at seems to confirm the datalink, which was my biggest question. The USAF seems to deliberately be obscuring what updates are being made and which missiles get them. I cannot blame them, but in particular the rapid designation changes are frustrating. There’s so much material about the “agm-158D” that just refers to the hypothetical/undocumented “JASSM-XR” that you have to wade through some googling to find anything referencing the actual new standard, and you need to know what you are looking for. Perhaps that is intentional.
 
So poland stole some of your JASSM production. They got themself some fine 821 AGN-158 B-2
 
kqcke for you said:
So poland stole some of your JASSM production. They got themself some fine 821 AGN-158 B-2
Click to expand...

Yeah, I was rather surprised at the quantity. The line only produces 550 a year right now, with a ramp up to 850. That still would be a years worth of production, presumably spread out over multiple years.
 
Yeah. Makes me wanne go to them and get some for ous. They got like ~11x as mutch as we get
 
kqcke for you said:
So poland stole some of your JASSM production.
Click to expand...

No, they bought it;).

kqcke for you said:
They got themself some fine 821 AGN-158 B-2
Click to expand...

AGM-158B-2.

kqcke for you said:
They got like ~11x as mutch as we get
Click to expand...

Of course they did, Poland it recent years has been on a defence spending-spree which has kicked into overdrive by Russia's invasion of Eastern Ukraine (They know from bitter experience what it's like to be under the Russian/Soviet boot-heel).
 
158B-2 I *think* has a revised shape for longer range and the M-code GPS (I presume SABR or something similar).
 
These last few documents confuse me. They mention 158B-2, 158B-3 and 158D as if those are three separate missiles.
And they're recent documents, so we can't say that 158D is just the old designation for 158B-2.
Personally, I've never heard of 158B-3 until now. Nor have I heard of 158D being mentioned as something separate and different from 158B-2.

So what are those two designations? What sort of changes do they entail? How come those just appeared out of nowhere, all of a sudden?
 
I lt is rather difficult to separate out the various iterations of AGM-158. They all come off the same production line and represent incremental improvements across lot numbers. I have attempted to piece together the changes based on scattered documentation, all of which has been posted to this thread by myself or someone else at some point. To summarize my best guess:

AGM-158B / B-1: original JASSM-ER

AGM-158B-2: range extension modification apparently using aerodynamic changes.

AGM-158B3: B2 with M code anti jam GPS receiver.

AGM-158D: weapon datalink added


AGM-158C / C1: original LRASM

AGM-158C2 / “Naval JASSM: LRASM with RF detection system removed (for range extension?) but presumably retains datalink and radar altimeters

AGM-158C3: LRASM ER, unknown changes to increase LRASM range to JASSM-ER level, presumably retains RF detection system.
 
But that's still your personal guess, right? Is there any piece of government source documentation or manufacturer documentation which mentions either B-3 or D variant in any sort of detail?
 
totoro said:
But that's still your personal guess, right? Is there any piece of government source documentation or manufacturer documentation which mentions either B-3 or D variant in any sort of detail?
Click to expand...

There is no publicly published list of versions and features. There were docs posted previously in this thread that I used to piece together the list. Someone posted a budget doc just a dozen or two posts up the page that seemed to confirm D gets the WDL. There are lots references to the B-2 having a moderate range extension, so that is very sure (this was erroneously called the D or JASSM-XR version in some articles and USAF *might* have changed the designation after the fact). C2 was described in an Aviation Leak article also posted here, with the (I think misleading) synopsis that the USN had come full circle and rejoined the JASSM program. LRASM-ER/C3 has been mentioned in budget docs with no details given.

So the above list is very solid. I think what is not completely clear is what changes compromise the B3 configuration (I am confident that either B2 or B3 introduces M code; all GPS guidance systems are getting it) and if/when a new outer coating was introduced to reduce IR and RCS (I’ve only seen this feature mentioned once so consider it unconfirmed).
 
B-2 range extension over B-1 is usually described as being considerable, though. from 1000 km to 1900 km.
But, truthfully, all the sources listing such a range are not really quality sources.

When you mention that B-2 has a moderate range extension, you mean to imply that actual range increase of B-2 variant over B-1 variant is not, in fact 900 km but (much) less?
 
totoro said:
B-2 range extension over B-1 is usually described as being considerable, though. from 1000 km to 1900 km.
But, truthfully, all the sources listing such a range are not really quality sources.

When you mention that B-2 has a moderate range extension, you mean to imply that actual range increase of B-2 variant over B-1 variant is not, in fact 900 km but (much) less?
Click to expand...

There were rumors of an “extreme range”/XR version that was a stretched fuselage. I’ve seen no credible sources for such a development nor any reports since a couple years ago. B2 has been characterized as having a longer range but no description of that range increase has been printed in what I would consider a credible source. We do know that it has the same engine and largely keeps the same form factor, so barring a major decrease in warhead, it is my opinion that any range increase is quite modest.
 
Josh_TN said:
There were rumors of an “extreme range”/XR version that was a stretched fuselage. I’ve seen no credible sources for such a development nor any reports since a couple years ago. B2 has been characterized as having a longer range but no description of that range increase has been printed in what I would consider a credible source. We do know that it has the same engine and largely keeps the same form factor, so barring a major decrease in warhead, it is my opinion that any range increase is quite modest.
Click to expand...

Yep, this is the problem. There are several mentions of JASSM XR becoming AGM-158D and then -158B2. But those talk about a dramatic stretch (nearly double the weight) with increases in both warhead weight and range. It is obvious this is not the missile that is actually being built now as -158B2, so something changed but the program is very opaque about what and when.
 
TomS said:
Yep, this is the problem. There are several mentions of JASSM XR becoming AGM-158D and then -158B2. But those talk about a dramatic stretch (nearly double the weight) with increases in both warhead weight and range. It is obvious this is not the missile that is actually being built now as -158B2, so something changed but the program is very opaque about what and when.
Click to expand...
I went looking to see what the differences were yesterday. At first I was excited about the range increase but then it turns out there probably isn't one.


1710458317419.png
 
Forest Green said:
www.defensenews.com

Poland buys missiles for hitting targets spotted by radar balloons

The new buy is part of a plan to fortify Poland's borders with Russia and Belarus, with sensors watching for threats as far as 1,000 kilometers away.
www.defensenews.com www.defensenews.com

https://twitter.com/x/status/1795834493405671772
View: https://x.com/defense_news/status/1795834493405671772
Click to expand...
Its questionable how survivable the Polish radar ballons will be for targeting, the Israeli $230 million Sky Dew radar ballon with its advanced 250 km radar designed to provide advance warning of low flying threats based in northern Israel was recently shot down by a cheap Hezbollah drone !!!

www.thenationalnews.com

Hezbollah 'blinds' Israeli defences with drone strike on Sky Dew airship | The National

Israeli military confirms damage to radar blimp as PM Benjamin Netanyahu accused of ignoring threat from Lebanese side of border
www.thenationalnews.com www.thenationalnews.com
 
Cordy said:
Its questionable how survivable the Polish radar ballons will be for targeting, the Israeli $230 million Sky Dew radar ballon with its advanced 250 km radar designed to provide advance warning of low flying threats based in northern Israel was recently shot down by a cheap Hezbollah drone !!!

www.thenationalnews.com

Hezbollah 'blinds' Israeli defences with drone strike on Sky Dew airship | The National

Israeli military confirms damage to radar blimp as PM Benjamin Netanyahu accused of ignoring threat from Lebanese side of border
www.thenationalnews.com www.thenationalnews.com
Click to expand...
Guess it depends on range, 1,000km away is a different story. For Israel, a 1,000km separation would probably be enough defence to avert war entirely.
 
The U.S. is close to an agreement to give Ukraine long-range cruise missiles that could reach deep into Russia, but Kyiv would need to wait several months as the U.S. works through technical issues ahead of any shipment, U.S. officials said.
The inclusion of Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missiles (JASSM) in a weapons package is expected to be announced this autumn, three sources said, though a final decision has not been made. The sources declined to be named because they are not authorized to discuss the topic.
Click to expand...

 
I don´t understand this emphasis on Long Range top of the game stealth tech. They have a thousand kilometers front that needs reinforcement with fresh and well trained soldiers... Now. A strategic campaign* against Russia would probably not articulate any new effects. However, an interdiction campaign will do. And NATO has already provided them all the means to do so, effectively.

I understand the terrible toll of Russian bombing but also fear that some are loosing their way.

*A strategic campaign does not work like a puzzle by adding pieces but as a whole. Ukraine has not the means to do so until, perhaps Antonov start churning out Strategic bombers by the dozens.
 
Last edited:
TomcatViP said:
A strategic campaign* against Russia would probably not articulate any new effects. However, an interdiction campaign will do. And NATO has already provided them all the means to do so, effectively.
Click to expand...
Means of strategic interdiction campaign against Russia begin with acronym USAF. Anything lesser will just produce Ukraine in reverse, damage here and there with massive escalation risks for no conclusive results.

And I somehow missed USAF being given to Ukraine.

JASSM is but a typical attempt to solve the unsolvable due to lack of options (SS/Scalp supply apparently simply dried out, as tends to happen with everything European), hoping that Russia will again just pretend to ignore it.

And, of course, weak us admin at the end of it's turn being simply wagged by a desperate tail in search of a miracle. It already opened to free HIMARS use in Kursk post factum (saving face, basically).
 
Last edited:
AGM-158A would increase the number of targets at risk, both in terms of range and number that could be struck with increased inventory. And as noted the oldest missiles would be hitting their use by date and either need to be demilitarized or overhauled, and the older missiles have little in common with the most recent types. It makes sense to donate them in place of SCALP/Stormshadow, which exist in ver modest numbers.
 
But you don´t do such while the front remains static. Playing the attrition game with expensive cruise missiles like the 158A is not a winning strategy. Everything has to start with an offensive.
While the Ukrainians looks maxed out in term of the size of their defense, Russia dictates the game. I sincerely doubt that today Russia would be able to draft a million men & Women as fast as Ukraine could do.
On the contrary, punching harder and deeper with blatantly non-Ukrainian developed weapons just increases Russian regime momentum in their will to use their Strategic assets for a quick stand down.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom