Lockheed Martin has introduced its latest development in cruise missile technology, the AGM-158 XR (eXtreme Range), during the Air, Space & Cyber Conference of the Air & Space Forces Association.
The company claims this new missile offers a significantly increased range while maintaining the stealth and precision strike capabilities of previous models in the AGM-158 family, such as the JASSM-ER (Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile Extended Range).
According to Lockheed Martin, the AGM-158 XR is designed to provide U.S. military forces with a low-risk, reliable weapon system that can be rapidly produced and deployed. The company states that the missile builds on over 20 years of experience developing cruise missiles, leveraging its work on the JASSM-ER and LRASM (Long Range Anti-Ship Missile).
The XR is said to deliver enhanced standoff attack capabilities at a lower cost and reduced development time by utilizing the established production lines and supply chains of its predecessors.
Lockheed Martin reports that the AGM-158 XR carries a 1,000-pound warhead and can be launched from various aircraft, including the F/A-18 and the F-35, which will be added soon. The missile is intended to provide an “extreme standoff range,” allowing U.S. forces to engage targets from greater distances while maintaining compatibility with existing platforms.
Lockheed Martin has not officially disclosed the exact range of the AGM-158 XR, but it is believed to reach distances similar to the Tomahawk cruise missile, around 1,000 miles.
The company clarifies that the XR offers an “extreme standoff range,” suggesting that it will provide a significantly greater striking distance than its predecessors. However, the precise figure remains classified or undisclosed.
To support rapid production, Lockheed Martin has introduced automated processes and digital simulations in its manufacturing facilities. According to the company, a new 225,000-square-foot facility opened in 2022, which includes robotics and automated systems designed to increase production efficiency while ensuring quality control.
These advancements, Lockheed claims, will not only accelerate production but also allow the integration of innovations like the AGM-158 XR more quickly. According to Lockheed Martin, the AGM-158 XR’s modular design ensures the missile will remain adaptable for future enhancements, with the company stating that it has already tested multiple “spiral upgrades” to the AGM-158 family.
Hopefully we can one day buy some of these.
Why?
Storm Shadow already has capabilities that JASSM can only dream of….
Navigation in a GPS denied environment? Storm Shadow can….JASSM can’t
M-Code GPS? Storm Shadow does….JASSM doesn’t
A highly capable penetration warhead? Storm Shadow does….JASSM doesn’t..
2 Way data link? Storm Shadow does….JASSM doesn’t…
Storm Shadow MLU has all of the above…JASSM has none of it…
All JASSM-XR brings is more range of a limited missile….but FC/ASW will arrive in due course, which will bring far more range. That will be a leap forward as well, and should set an entirely new benchmark.
If every Storm Shadow remaining in the RAF inventory hit the bit of Russia they could reach, what effect would it have?
How many HAS/Pens on the average airfield?
How many SS required to ensure HAS destruction?
How many sorties would it take to launch the remaining SS?
How many days would it take to launch the remaining SS?
I am assuming they are not aimed at the seat of power, for the sake of all Londoners.
What HAS on Russian airfields???
Have you seen Russian airfields?
All WarPac HAS were concentrated in airfields that were in eastern europe or eastern Ukraine. You will hardly find any at any Russian airfields as a result…airfields located in Russia proper were second line establishments or housed aircraft too big for HAS. Russia has invested practically nothing in them since the end of the Cold War.
Here’s Millerovo…one of the key Russian airfields for the Ukraine war….see any HAS?
No idea and No.
You have answered one question, and another no longer needs an answer.
If aircraft are simply dispersed, what is SS aimed at? It was originally designed for deep penetration, not an issue when used against a dispersed target set.
Agreed appears a stationary ship killer, not sure that was on the original target list :).
I guess the real crux of the questions was that the stock of SS is relatively small, compared to other effectors, and the number of launch platforms likewise is limited.
The RAF had around 900 Storm Shadows in its inventory. Some of these are going through the MLU program. Whilst others have been given to Ukraine. I haven’t seen any figures. But I’d expect at least 100 missiles, with more likely on the way. Storm Shadow‘s target set was to be primarily strategic targets. But also includes ships/subs in harbour. Which Ukraine have amply demonstrated. When we used them against Syria, to take out the chemical making facilities, storage sites and aircraft used for delivery. Storm Shadow showed that it could be used against above ground targets, I.e. a warehouse… Read more »
We’ve given at least 300, possibly more, Storm Shadow to Ukraine. There are, at most, another 50 non-MLU missiles left in UK stocks….then thats it I’m afraid.
The big question around Storm Shadow/SCALP is how many do the French have left to give? They had around 400 in stock, and were planning to only MLU 100 of them in 2019. Suspect they may have changed that figure post 2022, but we’ve only heard of around 50 being donated.
Italy only had 150 to begin with, so donations from them are minor.
Heard where?
Through the media. Grant Shapps has recently visited the production line and has posted some info on his Instagram.
No order has been placed for new Storm Shadow by the UK.
There was ‘production’ underway when he visited…..but the word production is doing a lot of work….what he saw was likely the Storm Shadow MLU for the UK, Italian and Saudi stockpile….not new build but remanufactured and upgraded existing missiles.
That’s probably more like it. You kind of read what you want to hear. But I do feel that there will be a line in the sand where there is a minimum stock level. If we keep giving SS to Ukraine, we will soon reach that level and decision will need to be made, on replenishing our stock levels.
From what I’ve read, in terms of capability SS seems to slot in between the tomahawk and the jassm. jassm-er is certainly a generation newer in terms of range, RCS reduction and seeker tech.
JASSM-ER is just a JASSM with a turbofan engine. It still has no M-Code GPS, Terprom/Tercom, full on penetration warhead like BROACH…and it has the same IIR seeker as JASSM-A, which is of the same generation as the Storm Shadow IIR.
Basically JASSM-ER has slighly better shaping for RCS reduction, longer range, costs more…but has less capability at penetrating hard targets and inferior navigation/resilience compared to Storm Shadow MLU (and in some respects the original Storm Shadow).
I’m not taking anything away from Storm Shadow at all, but current production JASSMs have both M-Code and two-way data links. AGM-158B-3 introduced M-code capability, and AGM-158D provides Weapon Data Link capability.
Neither B-3 or D are actually in service with those capabilities. Both M-Code and weapon data link are still ‘in development’ in USAF budget documents for 2025…so will not arrive in new production or upgrades until 2026 at the earliest….probably longer.
I would rather see the subsonic version of FC/ASW be something similar to this giving us the ability to launch very large scale conventional cruise missile attacks against an enemy like Russia as a deterrent or potentially being used on mass against fleets at sea. It’s pretty simple to get such weapons to be fired on mass from transport aircraft, Lockheed has it in deployment with JASSM and MBDA already trialled it with Taurus. If we combined such missile fired from our C17 and A400M with a strike from our F35’s with SPEAR and SPEAR EW then the UK would… Read more »
The USAF’s Rapid Dragon program would really benefit from a missile of 1,000-mile range. A C-17 could carry five pallets containing 9 AIM-158XR missiles each and sit well off a target.
Yes, it kind of negates the need for a strategic bomber fleet when your transport fleet can drop hundreds of stand off weapons in one go from 1000 miles away. I really hope we do something similar with FC/ASW.
Depends if you have spare transport aircraft available. Minus the Herc, and the A400’s poor availability. Would we have any aircraft that could be soared for this kind of role? The US do not have this problem.
A better option would be a cheaper version of the B21. As it can get closer to air defences before releasing its weapons. Thereby either reducing the enemy’s reaction time or allowing the weapons to penetrate deeper into enemy territory.
For what? Assassinations? There are already means to achieve necessary outcomes –SEAD for example.One has to hand it to arms corporations – always looking to milk the taxpayers.
1000 miles puts you further away from danger zones.
If the carrier aircraft can fly 500 miles then launch 1000 miles away it means your carrier is 1500 miles away from the target. Outside the range of fighter aircraft and most anti ship missiles.
The other option is if carried by F35s. They can get closer to an enemy’s air defences, even when carrying ordinance under the wings. Thereby allowing the missile’s launch point to be closer, so it could potentially penetrate deeper into enemy territory.
At the moment large scale conventional strike is being used as an alternative to nuclear weapons, the US and NATO would like use this as retaliation against Russia for a tactical nuclear strike in Ukraine. Japan, Taiwan and Australia are investing in it as a counter to Chinas nuclear threat.
It will be interesting what the range and cost of these will be per unit compared to the subsonic land attack version of FC/ASM which is due “2028”.
LM are hoping to churn out 1100 per year according to TWZ website. That should be a similar aspiration for the 3 FC/ASW partners. Hopefully FC/ASW won’t be more expensive, otherwise arguably buying US may give us deeper war stocks
One of the key capabilities the US needs is a cheap air launched long range cruise missile it can launch at the Chinese mainland in huge numbers and keep on making more and more to keep launching..remember china can easily hide a lot of its strategic resources upto 3000 miles inland from any access by the US.
At first I didn’t read the “3000 miles” section and was about to propose Spear.
Maybe if you doubled the length for 2 in an F35?
Maaaayyybee?