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

TomS said:
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.
Click to expand...

Well also there is presumably the possibility of more than one strike on the part of the B-52s, but yes by the time all thousand or so LRSOs are completed, B-21 integration will probably be a thing.
 
A thousand LRSO missiles Josh_TN? By the time that the last LRSO enters service the next bomber to replace the B-52 will be gettting designed and built.
 
FighterJock said:
A thousand LRSO missiles Josh_TN? By the time that the last LRSO enters service the next bomber to replace the B-52 will be gettting designed and built.
Click to expand...

Probably not; they are currently slated to operate until 2040+. I can’t imagine LRSO production extends past the early 2030s.
 
Never say never Josh_TN, it all depends on what happens in future politics in the US by the time the 2040s comes around.
 
Roughly how long did it take to "integrate" the original ALCM with the B-52? Any ideas? I suppose as a more sophisticated weapon, it might take more time for the LRSO to be IOC with the B-52s. However, on the B-21, I would not be surprised if nuclear munitions are a top priority for the aircraft. As @FighterJock noted, early models of the B-2 were nuclear-capable from the get-go. In fact, as I remember, one of the "criticisms" of the B-2 was that it was "irrelevant" to the needs of post-Cold War theater commanders as it could "only" carry free-fall nuclear bombs or conventional ones. By the end of the decade, though, it could carry an impressive array of precision-guided conventional munitions, including ones with stand-off capability I believe.

Of course, the AGM-69 SRAM was intended for use on the B-2. It was the main weapon of the B-1B but I think designed with a LO penetration bomber in mind from the beginning.

​

 
The B-2 was a Cold War bomber designed as a nuclear bomber with barely any consideration to conventional capabilities. I don’t think it’s evolution informs the B-21 in any way.
 
I'm not quite I understand what you mean in that the B-2's evolution won't inform or apply to the B-21's . . . in one area, the development of the LO tech, then of course the B-2 (and the F-117 and all "stealth" aircraft before it) will contribute to the B-21. Now, if we're talking weapons systems integration, yes, as the first post-Cold War bomber, the B-21 is going to be intended from the drawing board to be dual role. That is distinct from the B-2, yes.

However, the B-21 was central to the nuclear modernization program that accompanied the ratification of New START. With the LRSO. Although if the LRSO is cancelled in some very (very!) misinformed decision, I'm sure the Air Force will still try to make it fit into the nuclear OPLANs relying on its LO to penetrate and then drop a bomb IVO the target. Though I'd wager that within 15 years the Chinese will have LO-detection capability that makes that mission highly risky.

Anyway, we may be saying the same thing. If not the LRSO, the B-21 is going to gain the capability to drop the B61 either from day 1 or shortly thereafter.
 
JohnCitizen said:
I'm not quite I understand what you mean in that the B-2's evolution won't inform or apply to the B-21's . . . in one area, the development of the LO tech, then of course the B-2 (and the F-117 and all "stealth" aircraft before it) will contribute to the B-21. Now, if we're talking weapons systems integration, yes, as the first post-Cold War bomber, the B-21 is going to be intended from the drawing board to be dual role. That is distinct from the B-2, yes.

However, the B-21 was central to the nuclear modernization program that accompanied the ratification of New START. With the LRSO. Although if the LRSO is cancelled in some very (very!) misinformed decision, I'm sure the Air Force will still try to make it fit into the nuclear OPLANs relying on its LO to penetrate and then drop a bomb IVO the target. Though I'd wager that within 15 years the Chinese will have LO-detection capability that makes that mission highly risky.

Anyway, we may be saying the same thing. If not the LRSO, the B-21 is going to gain the capability to drop the B61 either from day 1 or shortly thereafter.
Click to expand...

I don’t know how effective LRSO will be or what the PRCs defense will consist of. I am however confident that the USAF is focused on a conventional penetration bomber. Nuclear delivery is planned but not a priority, because the MM3 force and USN are the primary ways of fulfilling that need.
 
Josh_TN said:
Nuclear delivery is planned but not a priority, because the MM3 force and USN are the primary ways of fulfilling that need.
Click to expand...

Nope. The triad is still a thing, for very good reasons. Heavy bombers are vital and will continue to be.
 
Josh_TN said:
I don’t know how effective LRSO will be or what the PRCs defense will consist of. I am however confident that the USAF is focused on a conventional penetration bomber. Nuclear delivery is planned but not a priority, because the MM3 force and USN are the primary ways of fulfilling that need.
Click to expand...
The three legs of the triad all have different roles:

Land based missiles are a first strike threat, because they're supposed to be more accurate (launching from a fixed position) and are a very obvious priority target if someone else launches first. They are use or lose.

Sea based missiles are the guarantors of Mutually Assured Destruction. You don't know where they are until they launch, and there's enough firepower there to erase whichever country launched on the US.

Bombers are the Threat warning indicator to the rest of the world. Want to make it obvious that the US is raising DEFCON? load and launch the bombers (or just launch them if you're bluffing).
 
Scott Kenny said:
The three legs of the triad all have different roles:

Land based missiles are a first strike threat, because they're supposed to be more accurate (launching from a fixed position) and are a very obvious priority target if someone else launches first. They are use or lose.
Click to expand...
Submarines are the first strike threat because they're closer to the target,
 
Scott Kenny said:
No, they're the untargetable reserve. And prior to Trident, weren't accurate enough to hit single military facilities anyways.
Click to expand...

Well realistically there are probably first strike options written up for these missiles, if only because they almost halve the flight time. I can’t believe there isn’t a card in the football for that, even if it’s use is unlikely.
 
Scott Kenny said:
No, they're the untargetable reserve. And prior to Trident, weren't accurate enough to hit single military facilities anyways.
Click to expand...
they're ships, and as ships they're movable assets.
I.e. they're both.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Not in how the crews are briefed on it.

If we ever got launch orders, we were expecting that the US was already gone.
Click to expand...
Expectations and morals are something else.
US boomers take de facto offensive/coercive stances from time to time. Last time wasn't that long ago.
 
I can easily see the expectation being that there was nothing left but the command authority in the case of a SSBN launch, because that is by far the most likely scenario. But I would bet a kidney that there are a raft of offensive options pre determined for the Trident forces as well. Five years ago they test launched a missile that was pretty unmistakably a depressed trajectory.
 
Ainen said:
Expectations and morals are something else.
US boomers take de facto offensive/coercive stances from time to time. Last time wasn't that long ago.
Click to expand...
When Kentucky visited Korea? Yeah, that was beyond rare when I was in. The only time Ohio-class boats visited Pacific countries before then was SSGNs.

Pacific SSBNs only visited San Diego or Pearl Harbor. The Atlantic boats did sometimes visit other countries besides the UK, Kentucky had visited Rota shortly before they went around the Horn to the Pacific.
 
You’d have to think the W76-2 has a first strike set of targets. Something you absolutely have to kill in the shortest time possible.

Iranian or N. Korean missile we get late intel might have a nuke on it?
 
bobbymike said:
You’d have to think the W76-2 has a first strike set of targets. Something you absolutely have to kill in the shortest time possible.

Iranian or N. Korean missile we get late intel might have a nuke on it?
Click to expand...
That's the 10kt version, right?

Those may have first strike cards in the Football, but I don't expect for full launches to exist as a first strike capability.
 
FighterJock said:
So what will that mean for the future of the LRSO?
Click to expand...

Probably nothing. It looks like they are just moving money and scheduling around to fix this years budget. I believe I read recently that LRSO has already gone through some successful testing...here it is:

www.twz.com

Flight Testing Of Air Force's New Nuclear-Armed Cruise Missile Well Underway

There have been at least nine flight tests of stealthy Long Range Stand Off missile prototypes, including one with a mock nuclear warhead.
www.twz.com www.twz.com
 
Thanks Josh_TN, I did not know that the LRSO had already been tested and with a mock nuclear warhead as well during one of the tests.
 
www.airandspaceforces.com

B-21 Bomber and LRSO Nuclear Missile Flight Testing 'On Track'

Testing of the B-21 bomber and LRSO nuclear cruise missile are on track and going well, Air Force acquisition executive Andrew Hunter said.
www.airandspaceforces.com www.airandspaceforces.com

Cotton also asked for the status of the equally-classified AGM-181 LRSO, the nuclear missile that will succeed the AGM-86B Air-Launched Cruise Missile and equip both the B-52J and the B-21.
Hunter said the LRSO is “tracking well. The program is definitely on track to meet its timelines and deliver to the warfighter need date. And we are also doing well on cost for that program as well.”
 
Good news all round Forest Green, especially for the nuclear LRSO cruise missile.
 
FighterJock said:
Good news all round Forest Green, especially for the nuclear LRSO cruise missile.
Click to expand...
I wonder what that will look like, my guess is a subsonic stealthy design like AGM-129 but superior in RCS reduction and range. It'll probably be distinct from JASSM-XR given how they like to make nuclear weapons distinct from conventional ones under US doctrine.
 
Forest Green said:
I wonder what that will look like, my guess is a subsonic stealthy design like AGM-129 but superior in RCS reduction and range. It'll probably be distinct from JASSM-XR given how they like to make nuclear weapons distinct from conventional ones under US doctrine.
Click to expand...
I still think it's going to end up looking a lot like a JASSM airframe, but AGM-86B/AGM-129 length. So ~3500lbs and 21ft long instead of ~14.
 
FighterJock said:
I like it when he says that lasers and air to air missiles will be included in the updated B-52 update near the end of the of the video. I was wondering when the USAF would go back to lasers after canceling the ABL, obviously the technology has shrunk down a lot since the COIL days.
Click to expand...
I imagine it has some space in the rear where the Vulcan and tail radar used to sit (and the 4 x.50cal MGs prior to that), although it's debatable whether you would want the laser at the rear or the front.
 
Forest Green said:
I wonder what that will look like, my guess is a subsonic stealthy design like AGM-129 but superior in RCS reduction and range. It'll probably be distinct from JASSM-XR given how they like to make nuclear weapons distinct from conventional ones under US doctrine.
Click to expand...
Since when? It's only since the "Peace Dividend" that many US weapons stopped having the nuclear option. CALCMs look exactly like AGM-86Bs (for all intents and purposes). TLAM-N looked just like conventional Tomahawk. Nuclear Terrier looked like conventional. On Talos and Nike Hercules you could tell the difference but that was a function of the guidance method, not because they thought someone would be hanging out in a balloon to see what kind of missile left the launcher.
 
sferrin said:
Since when? It's only since the "Peace Dividend" that many US weapons stopped having the nuclear option. CALCMs look exactly like AGM-86Bs (for all intents and purposes). TLAM-N looked just like conventional Tomahawk. Nuclear Terrier looked like conventional. On Talos and Nike Hercules you could tell the difference but that was a function of the guidance method, not because they thought someone would be hanging out in a balloon to see what kind of missile left the launcher.
Click to expand...
CALCMs got withdrawn though, as did TLAM-Ns. But yes, it seems to be a new trend, running contrary to past practices.
 
Forest Green said:
CALCMs got withdrawn though, as did TLAM-Ns. But yes, it seems to be a new trend, running contrary to past practices.
Click to expand...
Neither were retired because they looked like nukes though. CALCM was replaced by JASSM (more aircraft could carry it and it's cheaper) and the USN retired all its tactical nuclear weapons. (Aside from bombs on carriers possibly.)
 
Forest Green said:
..
Click to expand...

The "missile without a skin" mentioned here is a (manned) flying laboratory aircraft with missile components attached.

In other news, the Air Force sent out an RFI for an RCS diagnostic system for LRSO. The highlight is this requirement:

Be able to measure a system under test (SUT) with the following dimensions: 25 feet long by 20 feet wide by 3 feet high.
Click to expand...
 
Forest Green said:
CALCMs got withdrawn though, as did TLAM-Ns. But yes, it seems to be a new trend, running contrary to past practices.
Click to expand...

Quite honestly a modern networking cruise missile with a 1000# warheads have nothing in common with a nuclear missile with half the warhead weight, much more stringent EMP requirements, and no external guidance or influences whatsoever by design. They are no longer remotely the same animal. When all cruise missiles just used tercom and INS and nothing else, it made sense to use a single design for both. Now an SDB has four different guidance modes and a datalink. That’s cool, but NOT what you want in a strategic weapon. Even B-61-12 is INS only, with a free fall spin up option.
 
quellish said:
The "missile without a skin" mentioned here is a (manned) flying laboratory aircraft with missile components attached.

In other news, the Air Force sent out an RFI for an RCS diagnostic system for LRSO. The highlight is this requirement:
Click to expand...

Not sure what that means?
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom