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

[quellish]

Just like the X-62 could be called a CCA without a skin?

@quellish : your quote include this: "20ft wide". But does it have wings?

I assume so. This is a RFI for a ground RCS diagnostic system. It would measure the RCS of the missile in a flight configuration (wings extended) on a turntable or something similar.

 

[TomcatViP]

It would then be twice as much span as an AGM-86. What could explain that?

Edit:
In effect, roughly the size of a 3/4th (75%) scaled down XQ-58:

 

[4decaa]

Wing sweep also means that our 20ft figure wouldn't even be representative of the actual span/length of the wings themselves... just them in their deployed position (so at whatever angle was decided for the LO)... WTF?

 

[NMaude]

Wing sweep also means that our 20ft figure wouldn't even be representative of the actual span/length of the wings themselves... just them in their deployed position (so at whatever angle was decided for the LO)... WTF?

In regards to the AGM-86's wing-sweep IIRC the wing-sweep angle for the AGM-86A was 35 degrees but that was reduced to 25 degrees for the AGM-86B.

 

[Scott Kenny]

It would then be twice as much span as an AGM-86. What could explain that?

Long wings holding fuel, in addition to a fuselage tank?


Actually, hold that thought.

In regards to the AGM-86's wing-sweep IIRC the wing-sweep angle for the AGM-86A was 35 degrees but that was reduced to 25 degrees for the AGM-86B.

so let's split the difference to a 30deg sweep angle, making a nice easy equilateral triangle, 20ft on a side.

That means close to a 20ft long wing on each side! Frack!

My vote is definitely on fuel tanks in the wings.

 

[Forest Green]

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."

That has me questioning exactly what LRSO is.

 

[FighterJock]

By the sounds of it Forest Green, the LRSO is the next nuclear tipped cruise missile for the B-21 with stealthy characteristics but that is what I am currently thinking.

 

[Forest Green]

By the sounds of it Forest Green, the LRSO is the next nuclear tipped cruise missile for the B-21 with stealthy characteristics but that is what I am currently thinking.

Will 25ft long fit in a B-21 bay? That's ~7.5m or 1.2m more than an AGM-86B. I'm assuming 20ft wide and 3ft high is wingspan and inclusive of fin height respectively at this point.

 

[Josh_TN]

I do not see how any of these dimensions could fit a cruise missile. I think perhaps we are misunderstanding the requirements.

 

[Forest Green]

Since the requirement related to an RCS measurement system, could it be for a foreign unrelated missile?

 

[4decaa]

Since the requirement related to an RCS measurement system, could it be for a foreign unrelated missile?

with a 23ft length it fits quite snugly with the B-21 weapons bay, so I'd bet on LRSO

 

[quellish]

Since the requirement related to an RCS measurement system, could it be for a foreign unrelated missile?

No it is very specific to LRSO.
This is a system for validating and diagnosing the signature of the operational missile. They take it out of the box periodically and check it using this system. AGM-129 had a similar system and was in fact the first operational use of such a system. Later the F-117 and B-2, etc gained similar systems and now they are very standard for LO / VLO aircraft other than F-35

 

[Desertfox]

Dont expect anything too dramatically different from LRSO, this is a modernized, stealthy AGM-86 from a different manufacturer. Think T-38 -> T-7A.

 

[Forest Green]

with a 23ft length it fits quite snugly with the B-21 weapons bay, so I'd bet on LRSO

It says 25ft though, so the B-21 bay would have to be significantly longer than the B-2's bays.

 

[quellish]

Dont expect anything too dramatically different from LRSO, this is a modernized, stealthy AGM-86 from a different manufacturer. Think T-38 -> T-7A.

LRSO is very low observable, ALCM was not. That is a big difference

 

[flateric]

It would then be twice as much span as an AGM-86. What could explain that?

Classification? Why for the God's sake RFI physical dimensions envelope should match exact article size?

 

[TomcatViP]

We don´t know (at least I don´t). That´s why there is a question mark.
Ideally, we would have a comparable request from a similar RFI for an airframe that has known dimension. But the wording would also help.
Still it´s interesting: the probability of VLO cruise missile with a large span probably means a different flight profile (high alt?).

 

[quellish]

There are also a set of sources sought/solicitations/RFIs for integrating LRSO on the B-52.
The Air Force intends to take SUU-72 (pylons) out of rusting desert storage and refurbish them, then convert them to SUU-103. The Air Force also intends to take Common Strategic Rotary Launcher (CSRL)/Conventional Rotary Launcher (CRL) and convert them to Nuclear Rotary Launcher, while making new Nuclear Stores Interface Units and Pylon Load Adapters.

Strange thing is, contracts for B-52 integration were awarded to Boeing long ago, paid for, and as far as I can tell covered the same work. Why isn't Boeing doing this?

Stranger still, in 2022 the Air Force put out another (urgent) request just like the current one for carriage equipment/integration on the B-52. This was awarded, but no idea why they are going through this again. However, they had this to say:

The LRSO Carriage Equipment has been designed by the aircraft's prime contractor, but the
designs have not been tested, verified, or qualified. Design and maintenance documentation delivered by the aircraft
contractor relies upon their specific specifications and standards. Moreover, the aircraft contractor asserts that these standards are proprietary and declines to provide the Government sufficient rights/data to use them in depot maintenance according to the approved acquisition strategy. Finally, the aircraft contractor refuses to provide a version of the design and maintenance documentation that utilizes commercial and MIL-STDs available to the Government. This matter is at a negotiation impasse with the aircraft contractor resulting in unacceptable program risk.

Due to schedule challenges, the LRSO program chedule is in a "day for day" slip for conducting EMD flight tests on surrogate carriage equipment that pushes an unacceptable risk into AMAC nuclear certification.

That does not sound like a healthy program. In the same document they detail how far behind they were (it was..... significant).

Also interesting is that in 2022 Resonant Sciences was awarded an LRSO contract for pretty much the same RCS diagnostic system that there is an RFI for now, which they planned to meet using their RAZR (Resonant Adaptable Zonal Radar) RCS diagnostic product. A version of RAZR is also being used on the B-2 program.

Resonant Sciences showcases the RAZR at the 2024 AFA Air, Space, and Cyber Conference - Resonant Sciences

Resonant Sciences is a research and development firm located in Dayton, Ohio focused on developing and transitioning innovative technologies and solutions to developmental and operational platforms. Our areas of expertise include FSS radome and antenna design and fabrication, custom electronic...

www.resonantsciences.com

 

[Scott Kenny]

It says 25ft though, so the B-21 bay would have to be significantly longer than the B-2's bays.

I was assuming that the B-21 bay was the same size as the B-52s, 6'x28'

 

[NMaude]

The Air Force intends to take SUU-72 (pylons) out of rusting desert storage and refurbish them, then convert them to SUU-103. The Air Force also intends to take Common Strategic Rotary Launcher (CSRL)/Conventional Rotary Launcher (CRL) and convert them to Nuclear Rotary Launcher, while making new Nuclear Stores Interface Units and Pylon Load Adapters.

What exactly are the SUU-72 pylons? I've tried looking them up on Google and I haven't been able to find much information on them.

Edit: I can't find anything on the SUU-103 either.

 

[flateric]

What exactly are the SUU-72 pylons?

"You May Remember Me From..." - Troy McClure

Edit: I can't find anything on the SUU-103 either.

I wonder why?

 

[NMaude]

"You May Remember Me From..." - Troy McClure

I wonder why?

Thanks. The kind of hits I got when searching google were things such as US gun-pods (SUU-16 for example), US cluster-bomb units and the stores pylons for F/A-18s.

 

[Josh_TN]

The SUU-72 is used with the AGM-86B, correct ?

 

[NMaude]

The SUU-72 is curried with the AGM-86B, correct ?

It would appear so, no doubt they replaced the Hound Dog pylons that the B-52G/H were equipped with.

 

[Josh_TN]

It would appear so, no doubt they replaced the Hound Dog pylons that the B-52G/H were equipped with.

Well I am aware that there is a separate pylon just for the -86 that is not the heavy store adapter beam (which is conventional only), I guess my question was whether the SUU-72 is this specific pylon or something else. I had always assumed the AGM-129 and -86 used the same suspension unit.

Separate from the above mentioned contract, there was an RFI to upgrade the AGM-86 pylon (SUU-72?) with MIL-1760 interfaces for future hypersonic weapons carriage.

 

[Forest Green]

At this speculated size, there is the possibility that the AGM-181 is actually an air-launched stealth drone that carries independently targetable warheads/bombs/missiles.

 

[flateric]

The SUU-72 is used with the AGM-86B, correct ?

I thought photos in my post give a solid lead what SUU-72/A is built for. SUU-67/A is for AGM-86*s

 

[quellish]

I thought photos in my post give a solid lead what SUU-72/A is built for. SUU-67/A is for AGM-86*s