Raytheon AGM-181 Long Range Stand Off Weapon (LRSO)

Also in the budget request, the NNSA wrote that the nuclear warhead for a sea-launched cruise missile proposed by the Donald Trump administration, and so far supported by the Biden administration, will be a variant of the W80-4 warhead being prepared for the Pentagon’s next air-launched cruise missile, the Long Range Standoff Weapon.

Work on the sea-launched cruise missile program has to start in fiscal year 2022, NNSA said. A W80 alteration for the sea-based weapon will run on the same production line as the air-based weapon, similar to the way the agency handled a variant of the Navy’s smaller submarine-launched ballistic-missile warhead in 2019. That year, the Pantex Plant in Amarillo, Texas, kept the line used for the W76-1 warhead refurbishment running to create a small, so-far-undisclosed, number of lower-yield W76-2 warheads.

The NNSA plans to produce its W80-4 first production unit, a proof-of-concept article intended to prove the design and manufacturing line is ready for mass production, in fiscal year 2025. The Air Force plans to deploy the Long Range Standoff Weapon around 2030.
Click to expand...

bobbymike said:
www.exchangemonitor.com

NNSA '22 Budget Details: SRS Pit Costs Balloon; W80 Alt for Sea-Launched Cruise Missile; B83 Sustainment Price Tag - ExchangeMonitor

Among the highlights of the National Nuclear Security Administration’s detailed fiscal year 2022 budget request: it will cost more than double what the
www.exchangemonitor.com www.exchangemonitor.com
Click to expand...
 
The Air Force awarded a $2 billion contract to Raytheon Missiles and Defense to engineer and develop the AGM-181 Long Range Standoff (LRSO) weapon system, the service’s next-generation air-launched nuclear missile.

The deal, announced July 1, is for the engineering and manufacturing development phase, which is set to last through February 2027 as Raytheon will continue to develop the cruise missiles, with a goal of demonstrating full production readiness. The contract was the result of a sole-source acquisition.

“The team’s extensive work—with a major focus on digital engineering—and close collaboration with the Air Force throughout the technology maturation and risk reduction phase, has guided us to an EMD contract award,” said Paul Ferraro, vice president of Air Power at Raytheon Missiles & Defense, in a statement to Air Force Magazine. “Transitioning to the EMD phase is a big step toward delivering this critical capability to the Air Force to strengthen our nation’s deterrence posture.”

The announcement comes just a few months after the Air Force announced in April that the service was proceeding with Raytheon as the highly classified program’s “sole source contractor” on the technology, maturation, and risk reduction (TMRR) phase, removing competitor Lockheed Martin.

Raytheon’s TMRR deal was worth $900 million and was expected to run through 2022. The Air Force said at the time that it had “high confidence” in choosing the Raytheon missile design due to the success of the program.

The LRSO is slated to replace the nuclear AGM-86B Air-Launched Cruise Missile beginning in about 2030, equipping the B-52 and B-21 bombers as one-third of the nuclear triad. Its range is expected to be in excess of 1,500 miles, and first flight could come in 2022.

The Air Force’s 2022 budget request included $609 million for the program. The Congressional Budget Office estimated in 2017 that the LRSO will cost $10 billion to produce 1,000 missiles, for a unit cost of $10 million apiece, but the Arms Control Association has estimated the cost could be closer to $20 billion.

The LRSO represents just part of the Air Force’s nuclear modernization efforts. The Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent, being developed by Northrop Grumman, is scheduled to have its first flight in 2023. The GBSD is expected to achieve initial operational capability in 2029 and full operational capability with 400 missiles seven years later in 2036.

www.airforcemag.com

Raytheon Gets $2 Billion Air Force Contract for LRSO | Air & Space Forces Magazine

The USAF has awarded a $2 billion contract for Long Range Standoff missiles to Raytheon. The LRSO is set to go into service in 2030.
www.airforcemag.com www.airforcemag.com
 
Any information on what engine system this will utilize? I’ve been looking and can’t seem to find anything.
 
SparkyDinosaur said:
Any information on what engine system this will utilize? I’ve been looking and can’t seem to find anything.
Click to expand...

I wonder that too.

odds are however is a Turbofan engine, something with better SFC, lighter and probably with higher electrical power generation capability than current Williams engine powering the Tomahawk.
 
Did not realize it had been given a designation.

"“We have not started any conversations” with Air Force Global Strike Command about pursuing a conventional version of the in-development Raytheon Technologies AGM-181 Long-Range Stand Off missile, the nuclear successor to the AGM-86B with a range reportedly in excess of 1,800 miles, he said. AFGSC boss Gen. Timothy M. Ray said earlier this year that a conventional version of LRSO would be worth pursuing, just as a conventional version of the air-launched cruise missile was developed and used in conflicts since Operation Desert Storm in 1991. But he said he had not issued a requirement for such a weapon."

www.airforcemag.com

As Air Force Ramps Up JASSM, Work Begins on its Replacement | Air & Space Forces Magazine

The US Air Force is already discussing what comes after the AGM-158 Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile, even as JASSM production expands.
www.airforcemag.com www.airforcemag.com
 
sferrin said:
Did not realize it had been given a designation.

"“We have not started any conversations” with Air Force Global Strike Command about pursuing a conventional version of the in-development Raytheon Technologies AGM-181 Long-Range Stand Off missile, the nuclear successor to the AGM-86B with a range reportedly in excess of 1,800 miles, he said. AFGSC boss Gen. Timothy M. Ray said earlier this year that a conventional version of LRSO would be worth pursuing, just as a conventional version of the air-launched cruise missile was developed and used in conflicts since Operation Desert Storm in 1991. But he said he had not issued a requirement for such a weapon."

www.airforcemag.com

As Air Force Ramps Up JASSM, Work Begins on its Replacement | Air & Space Forces Magazine

The US Air Force is already discussing what comes after the AGM-158 Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile, even as JASSM production expands.
www.airforcemag.com www.airforcemag.com
Click to expand...

I too did not realise that the Long-Range Stand Off Missile had been given a designation either, when did that happen? I also wonder when it will be given an official name like the Tomahawk cruise missile.
 
FighterJock said:
sferrin said:
Did not realize it had been given a designation.

"“We have not started any conversations” with Air Force Global Strike Command about pursuing a conventional version of the in-development Raytheon Technologies AGM-181 Long-Range Stand Off missile, the nuclear successor to the AGM-86B with a range reportedly in excess of 1,800 miles, he said. AFGSC boss Gen. Timothy M. Ray said earlier this year that a conventional version of LRSO would be worth pursuing, just as a conventional version of the air-launched cruise missile was developed and used in conflicts since Operation Desert Storm in 1991. But he said he had not issued a requirement for such a weapon."

www.airforcemag.com

As Air Force Ramps Up JASSM, Work Begins on its Replacement | Air & Space Forces Magazine

The US Air Force is already discussing what comes after the AGM-158 Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile, even as JASSM production expands.
www.airforcemag.com www.airforcemag.com
Click to expand...

I too did not realise that the Long-Range Stand Off Missile had been given a designation either, when did that happen? I also wonder when it will be given an official name like the Tomahawk cruise missile.
Click to expand...
Like THAAD, AMRAAM, GBI, JASSM, JSOW, etc. it probably won't. We can probably blame lawyers.
 
CUI is relatively new -- strictly speaking, it's not a classification, but a category of data. In theory, CUI replaces For Official Use Only (FOUO) and Sensitive But Unclassified (SBU) but both of those are still in widespread use, despite executive orders calling for CUI to replace them.
 
I wonder if CUI would stop all the data leaks that have been happening over the course of the last few years. Though I would have thought that to keep prying eyes away from sensitive information would be to keep it away from the civilian internet and have it all on a carefully monitored Intranet.
 
FighterJock said:
I wonder if CUI would stop all the data leaks that have been happening over the course of the last few years. Though I would have thought that to keep prying eyes away from sensitive information would be to keep it away from the civilian internet and have it all on a carefully monitored Intranet.
Click to expand...

That's where Secret (and above) information lives -- on separate networks that are in theory air-gapped from the public Internet. When stuff gets leaked at the Secret level and above, it's generally been removed from those networks deliberately.

CUI/FOUO/SBU exists on systems connected to the Internet for a wide variety of reasons.
 
It took a decade for the F-117A to be revealed to the public for the first time, so I would imagine that the new USAF project will be exactly the same. Almost forgot about the Northrop Whale or Tacit Blue as it was officially known.
 
NMaude said:
Why would lawyers be at fault?
Click to expand...
Because the possibility of offending the perpetually offended is so high. Why risk a lawsuit over a name chosen that offends somebody or could be construed as a trademark/copyright infringement (it's how we got "Fighting Falcon")? That and it costs money. (Certainly less than the challenge coins I'd think though.) Maybe it would be better to blame the bean-counters.
 
Has there been any definitive photograph or image of the LRSO released yet? Because I did a Google search and I couldn't find any images that are definitively the LRSO (At least as far as I could see).
 
Not sure it will. We still don’t have a AIM-260 pic, though presumably we will when it enters service. A nuclear missile image might take a lot longer given the comparative scarcity of deployment.
 
zjz said:

USAF Solicitation Outlines Planned LRSO B-52 Integration | Aviation Week Network

The U.S. Air Force is looking for a company able to integrate the upcoming nuclear Long-Range Stand Off cruise missile on the B-52.
aviationweek.com aviationweek.com
Click to expand...

It seems that only two dozen B-52s would be capable of nuclear operations at any given time. That would equal about ~500 missiles in a single salvo (assuming you could attach the wing/rotary units to any fully mission capable B-52) out of a planned LRSO buy of 1000 units.
 
Josh_TN said:
It seems that only two dozen B-52s would be capable of nuclear operations at any given time. That would equal about ~500 missiles in a single salvo (assuming you could attach the wing/rotary units to any fully mission capable B-52) out of a planned LRSO buy of 1000 units.
Click to expand...

The B-21 is also supposed to be an LRSO platform, isn't it?
 
TomS said:
The B-21 is also supposed to be an LRSO platform, isn't it?
Click to expand...

Yes, I was speaking just to the B-52 fleet which will employ the LRSO as its sole strategic weapon. Though as a practical matter, I suspect it takes awhile for the B-21 fleet to have LRSO integrated. Giving a stealth bomber a 1500nm missile is kind of putting a hat on a hat. I think the USAF wants the bomb bay to be large enough to carry LRSO as a way of future proofing the aircraft but I bet it will be integrated many years long after B-21 IOC. B-61 integration will almost certainly come first.
 
Last edited:
FighterJock said:
I would think that th B-21 crews would want the LRSO cleared as soon as possible, possibly just as it is entering service.
Click to expand...

Why? More over the crews do not get a vote. Nuclear integration likely takes awhile in and of itself; I think I’ve already read that B-21 will deployed first as a conventional bomber. USAF will probably prioritize conventional weapons integration over strengthening the weakest leg of the triad. I’d assume the bare minimum capabilities would be all the B-2s unpowered ordnance - 500lb JDAM and 2000/5000/30000 lb penetrators. I would think SDB 1/2 would be the next priority, or even an initial capability. SiAW next.
 
Being the weakest leg of the nuclear triad is a travisty of injustice Josh_TN, I would have thought that having the B-21 the commanders in the USAF Global Strike Command would have put the LRSO at the heart of the nuclear deterrent role for the B-21, especially with what is happening with the world right now. I can remember the Block 10 variant of the B-2 being nuclear capable right from the start even though the Cold War ended when it did.
 
Josh_TN said:
Yes, I was speaking just to the B-52 fleet which will employ the LRSO as its sole strategic weapon. Though as a practical matter, I suspect it takes awhile for the B-21 fleet to have LRSO integrated.
Click to expand...

Agreed. I was just thinking that B-21s will account for the rest of that LRSO inventory, eventually. Neither the LRSO-capable B-21s nor the final 500 LRSOs themselves will arrive all at once, anyway.
 
FighterJock said:
Being the weakest leg of the nuclear triad is a travisty of injustice Josh_TN, I would have thought that having the B-21 the commanders in the USAF Global Strike Command would have put the LRSO at the heart of the nuclear deterrent role for the B-21, especially with what is happening with the world right now. I can remember the Block 10 variant of the B-2 being nuclear capable right from the start even though the Cold War ended when it did.
Click to expand...

We will agree to disagree. I do not think bombers are a good nuclear deterrent, though they are necessary for a flexible response. And I think the B-52 with stand off weapons fulfills the role well enough. At some point the B-21 will have to take over the role of strategic free fall/guided bomb delivery from the B-2 when that type retires to fulfill the role of manned penetrating nuclear platform with recall capability (quite sure LRSO will be a closed loop system like ALCM).
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom