current us cruise missiles

The Air Force’s New Stealth Cruise Missile Is a Go. But Do We Need It?

Let's make sense of the controversial Long Range Stand Off.

• The Long Range Stand Off (LRSO) missile will arm Air Force strategic bombers.
• LRSO will have the range to make even B-52s effective nuclear platforms.

The U.S. Air Force has awarded Raytheon a contract to develop the service’s next-generation stealth cruise missile. The Long Range Stand Off (LRSO) missile will arm B-21 Raider and B-52 Stratofortress bombers, allowing them to launch missiles against targets without penetrating enemy airspace.

The Air Force flies two types of nuclear-capable bombers: the B-2 Spirit and B-52H Stratofortress. (The B-1 Lancer is no longer capable of carrying nukes and is now a conventional munitions-only bomber.) The bombers are armed with two kinds of nuclear weapons: the B61 and B83 free-fall gravity bombs, as well as the AGM-86B Air Launched Cruise Missile (ALCM).

While free-fall bombs typically have large explosive yields (the B83 has a yield of 1,300 kilotons, for example), the bomber must overfly the target. On the plus side, bomber crews can cancel the drop at the last minute. Bombers can launch the ALCM at targets up to 1,500 miles away, but enemies can shoot the cruise missile down. A cruise missile also takes up to 2 hours to reach its target, and it can’t be recalled during that time.

In the 1970s, nuclear bombers were on the verge of extinction. Advances in long-range air defense missiles and high-speed interceptors such as the Soviet MiG-25 made big, lumbering bombers like the B-52 sitting ducks in enemy airspace. But cruise missiles— effectively small, unmanned airplanes powered by turbofan engines, and low-flying to evade radar—allow bombers to launch against enemy targets long before they’re under threat.

A B-52, for example, could fire a salvo of ALCMs far from Soviet airspace, targeting enemy air defense installations. The B-52 could use ALCMs to blast a path to its main target, nuking MiGs on runways, radar sites, and enemy headquarters while remaining safely out of reach. Once the path is clear, the B-52 can then infiltrate enemy airspace and finally drop a high-yield gravity bomb on the target.

Cruise missiles are critical to the usefulness of bombers in a nuclear war. Without them, bombers would probably have to withdraw from the nuclear triad , removing a key capability—the ability to recall or cancel a nuclear strike—from America’s nuclear toolbox.

The Air Force has relied on the AGM-86B Air Launched Cruise Missile since the 1970s. Like any aging technology, the missile is increasingly difficult to maintain. The ALCM also lacks radar-evading stealth technology that would make it more difficult to detect by enemy defenses, increasing its likelihood of reaching its target.

LRSO, then, will be a stealthy missile with about the same range of 1,500 miles. The missile will also use the W80-4 thermonuclear warhead, a refurbished version of the older W80-1 thermonuclear warhead, with a customizable yield of 5 to 150 kilotons .

The new cruise missile is controversial. In 2015, a number of key U.S. Senators asked then-U.S. President Barack Obama to cancel the LRSO , saying the new missile was unnecessary given the development of the B61-12 nuclear gravity bomb and the forthcoming B-21 Raider bomber. Others warn that LRSO is “unnecessary” and “destabilizing.”

So, does the Air Force need its new stealth cruise missile? If it wants to keep the bomber leg of the nuclear triad , then the answer is yes. A B-21 Raider without cruise missiles would have to overfly every target to destroy it, a requirement that would dangerously expose the bomber and potentially add hours to a combat mission.

If such a bomber is tasked with destroying an enemy communications or headquarters site that transmits orders to launch more missiles, it could arrive at the target too late to interrupt the enemy’s plans— if it arrives at all.

In an ideal world, the U.S. could bargain with the other nuclear powers to gradually reduce—and even eliminate—nuclear weapons worldwide. An adversary must, however, recognize that America’s nukes are a threat in order to want to bargain to get rid of them.

Building LRSO isn’t the end of the world ... but using them is. Between those two points, the U.S. can trade nuclear missiles away in exchange for missiles in Russia or China targeting this country.

🎥 Now Watch This:

Kyle Mizokami is a writer on defense and security issues and has been at Popular Mechanics since 2015. If it involves explosions or projectiles, he's generally in favor of it. Kyle’s articles have appeared at The Daily Beast, U.S. Naval Institute News, The Diplomat, Foreign Policy, Combat Aircraft Monthly, VICE News , and others. He lives in San Francisco.

.css-cuqpxl:before{padding-right:0.3125rem;content:'//';display:inline;} Pop Mech Pro .css-xtujxj:before{padding-left:0.3125rem;content:'//';display:inline;}

Underwater UFO is a Threat, Says Ex-Navy Officer

DIY Car Key Programming: Why Pay the Dealer?

How to Replace Your Car’s Brakes

Use Induction Heat to Break Free Rusted Bolts

The Air Force is Resurrecting a B-1 Bomber

Who Killed Harry Houdini?

A New Hypersonic Missile Will Give the F-35 Fangs

The Navy’s New Drone Could Turn into a Ship-Killer

The CIA’s Secret Plan to Turn Psychics Into Spies

Is This the Real Iceberg That Sank the Titanic?

A Barrage of Missiles Met Resistance Over Israel

• Missiles of the World
• The United States

JASSM / JASSM ER

Jassm / jassm er at a glance.

JASSM Development

The JASSM employs a low-observable airframe designed to defeat various targets, including enemy air defenses. The missile’s low-profile airframe is particularly important given the proliferation of sophisticated air defenses such as the S-300 (and newer variants). The JASSM-ER will eventually incorporate a weapons data link (WDL) into the missile allowing for course corrections after launch. 4 This is a critical upgrade for road-mobile and maritime targets.

In 2018, the USAF initiated development of a further extended variant designated the AGM-158D. Known as the JASSM-XR, or “Extreme Range,” it can range approximately 1,800 km. Deliveries are planned to start in January 2024. 5

Specifications

The JASSM is fitted to the B-1B Lancer, B-2 Spirit, B-52H Stratofortress, F-15E Strike Eagle, F-16C/D, F/A-18C/D, and possibly later the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. The B-1B and F-15E can also equip the upgraded JASSM-ER.

Service History

In April 2018, the United States used JASSM in combat for the first time, targeting Syria’s Barzah Research Development Center, which manufactured chemical weapons for the Assad government. The strike included 19 JASSM-A missiles. 17

• “Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile,” Selected Acquisition Report, Defense Acquisition Management Information Retrieval, U.S. Department of Defense, April 16, 2014, http://www.dod.mil/pubs/foi/Reading_Room/Selected_Acquisition_Reports/14-F-0402_DOC_38_JAASMDecember2013SAR.PDF
• “AGM-158 (Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile), United States of America,” Air Force Technology, http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/agm-158-jassm-standoff-missile/.
• “Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile,” Selected Acquisition Report, Defense Acquisition Management Information Retrieval, U.S. Department of Defense, April 16, 2014, http://www.dod.mil/pubs/foi/Reading_Room/Selected_Acquisition_Reports/14-F-0402_DOC_38_JAASMDecember2013SAR.PDF.
• Brian W. Everstine, “USAF to Start Buying ‘Extreme Range’ JASSMs in 2021,” Air Force Magazine, February 14, 2020, https://www.airforcemag.com/usaf-to-start-buying-extreme-range-jassms-in-2021/.
• “AGM-158,” in IHS Jane’s Weapons: Strategic 2015-2016, ed. James C. O’Halloran (United Kingdom: IHS, 2015), 214-216.
• “AGM-158 (Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile), United States of America,” Air Force Technology, http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/agm-158-jassm-standoff-missile/
• “AGM-158: Lockheed’s Family of Stealthy Cruise Missiles,” Defense Industry Daily, September 8, 2016, http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/agm-158-jassm-lockheeds-family-of-stealthy-cruise-missiles-014343/; “JASSM,” Lockheed Martin, seen on May 17, 2021, https://www.lockheedmartin.com/en-us/products/jassm.html.
• Thomas Newdick, “Five JASSM Stealth Missiles Have Been Loaded On An F-15E Strike Eagle For The First Time,” The Drive , May 11, 2021, https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/40559/five-jassm-stealth-missiles-have-been-loaded-on-an-f-15e-strike-eagle-for-the-first-time.
• “AGM-158: Lockheed’s Family of Stealthy Cruise Missiles,” Defense Industry Daily.
• Rachel S. Cohen, “Congress Suggests JASSM-ER Bulk Buy,” Air Force Magazine, December 18, 2019, https://www.airforcemag.com/congress-suggests-jassm-er-bulk-buy/.
• “AGM-158: Lockheed’s Family of Stealthy Cruise Missiles,” Defense Industry Daily, June 17, 2020, http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/agm-158-jassm-lockheeds-family-of-stealthy-cruise-missiles-014343/.
• Missile Defense Project, “JASSM Deployed to South Korea,” Missile Threat, Center for Strategic and International Studies, June 28, 2017, last modified June 15, 2018, https://missilethreat.csis.org/jassm-deployed-south-korea/.
• Kyle Mizokami, “The Pentagon’s New Strike Missile Just Saw Its First Combat,” Popular Mechanics, April 17, 2018, https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a19843076/syria-attack-jassm-er-new-long-range-strike-missile/.
• Brian W. Everstine, “JASSMs Used to Level Baghdadi’s Compound in Syria,” Air Force Magazine, October 28, 2018, https://www.airforcemag.com/JASSMs-Used-to-Level-Baghdadis-Compound-in-Syria/.

To make this website work, we log user data. By using Shephard's online services, you agree to our Privacy Policy , including cookie policy.

Stay up to date with our Newsletter

• Air Warfare >

USAF next-gen cruise missile programme advances to next phase

5th July 2021 - 12:18 GMT | by The Shephard News Team

LRSO will replace the AGM-86B Air Launched Cruise Missile, pictured being loaded onto a USAF B-52H Stratofortress. (Photo: USAF/Senior Airman Lillian Miller)

• Most Viewed
• Most Shared

UK company demonstrates crewed-uncrewed teaming

Airbus could miss out as India’s air refueller saga drags on

Poland and Netherlands approved for hundreds of air-to-ground missiles

Another Saab GlobalEye lands in the UAE

The Long Range Stand Off (LRSO) air-launched cruise missile for the USAF is now in the engineering and manufacturing development (EMD) phase, after sole contractor Raytheon Missiles and Defense obtained a $2 billion deal from the US Air Force Nuclear Weapons Center.

‘During the EMD phase, manufacturing processes will continue to mature and the manufacturing environment will be demonstrated and transitioned to a pilot line readiness state,’ the DoD announced on 1 July.

Work will be performed in Tucson, Arizona, and is expected to be completed by February 2027.

‘The objective at the end of EMD is to demonstrate full production readiness,’ the DoD added. Shephard reported in April 2020 that each LRSO missile would cost $10 million to produce.

The nuclear-capable LRSO will replace the 1980s-vintage AGM-86B Air Launched Cruise Missile. The new missiles could be launched from  B-52 , B-1, B-2 or B-21 bombers.

The Shephard News Team

As part of our promise to deliver comprehensive coverage to Premium News and Defence Insight …

You may also like

Anduril and GA-ASI propel forward in US Air Force CCA programme’s next phase

Greece and Israel cosy up over Rafael’s Spyder air defence system

More from air warfare.

QinetiQ's aerial target drone, the Banshee, was modified to be controlled by a piloted aircraft.

Amid heightened demand for aerial refuelling capabilities in India, Airbus Defence faces a potential setback in securing defence contracts in the country due to escalating costs and concerns over trust.

Connect with us on socials

• Latest news
• Our mission
• Marketing solutions
• Air Warfare
• Land Warfare
• Naval Warfare
• Defence Notes
• Digital Battlespace
• Defence Helicopter
• Special Operations
• Uncrewed Vehicles
• Industry Spotlights
• Studio Content
• Show News Portals
• All Products
• Access Premium News
• Defence Insight
• Newsletters
• Handbook Portal
• Technology Reports
• All Solutions
• Advertise with us
• Case Studies
• Defence Insight Dashboard
• My Subscriptions
• Manage Account

Programs submenu

Regions submenu, topics submenu, the belt and road initiative at 10: challenges and opportunities, the future of the indo-pacific with the coast guard commandant, breaking bad: south korea's nuclear option, the future of u.s. lng exports: a conversation with rep. sean casten and rep. garret graves.

• Abshire-Inamori Leadership Academy
• Aerospace Security Project
• Africa Program
• Americas Program
• Arleigh A. Burke Chair in Strategy
• Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative
• Asia Program
• Australia Chair
• Brzezinski Chair in Global Security and Geostrategy
• Brzezinski Institute on Geostrategy
• Chair in U.S.-India Policy Studies
• China Power Project
• Chinese Business and Economics
• Defending Democratic Institutions
• Defense-Industrial Initiatives Group
• Defense 360
• Defense Budget Analysis
• Diversity and Leadership in International Affairs Project
• Economics Program
• Emeritus Chair in Strategy
• Energy Security and Climate Change Program
• Europe, Russia, and Eurasia Program
• Freeman Chair in China Studies
• Futures Lab
• Geoeconomic Council of Advisers
• Global Food and Water Security Program
• Global Health Policy Center
• Hess Center for New Frontiers
• Human Rights Initiative
• Humanitarian Agenda
• Intelligence, National Security, and Technology Program
• International Security Program
• Japan Chair
• Kissinger Chair
• Korea Chair
• Langone Chair in American Leadership
• Middle East Program
• Missile Defense Project
• Project on Critical Minerals Security
• Project on Fragility and Mobility
• Project on Nuclear Issues
• Project on Prosperity and Development
• Project on Trade and Technology
• Renewing American Innovation Project
• Scholl Chair in International Business
• Smart Women, Smart Power
• Southeast Asia Program
• Stephenson Ocean Security Project
• Strategic Technologies Program
• Transnational Threats Project
• Wadhwani Center for AI and Advanced Technologies
• All Regions
• Australia, New Zealand & Pacific
• Middle East
• Russia and Eurasia
• American Innovation
• Civic Education
• Climate Change
• Cybersecurity
• Defense Budget and Acquisition
• Defense and Security
• Energy and Sustainability
• Food Security
• Gender and International Security
• Geopolitics
• Global Health
• Human Rights
• Humanitarian Assistance
• Intelligence
• International Development
• Maritime Issues and Oceans
• Missile Defense
• Nuclear Issues
• Transnational Threats
• Water Security

The 2022 Missile Defense Review: Still Seeking Alignment

Commentary by Tom Karako

Published October 27, 2022

The Biden administration released its unclassified Missile Defense Review today, as part of the National Defense Strategy. As policy guidance to an increasingly broad enterprise, the 2022 MDR represents an opportunity to achieve greater alignment between U.S. air and missile defense (AMD) efforts and the strategic competition with China and Russia.

The new MDR is a step forward from past reviews in several respects. Gone is the primary focus on rogue state ballistic missiles that defined the 2010 review. It also corrects the 2019 MDR’s insufficient attention to integration, air defense layering for cruise missile and UAS threats, and survivability. Although the public version of the review leaves much to be desired, it nevertheless advances several critical mission areas: a comprehensive approach to missile defeat, homeland cruise missile defense, the defense of Guam, and distributed operations.

This MDR has three parts: the first addresses the evolving air and missile threat environment, the second, the U.S. strategy and policy framework, and the third, ways to strengthen international cooperation. Following the overarching theme of the 2022 NDS, the MDR describes missile defenses as a critical component of “integrated deterrence,” defined as a framework bringing together all instruments of national power.

The 12-page, 4,700-word document is dramatically shorter than the 2019 version, which came in at 28,834 words and 100 pages. While brevity can bring readability and concision, it can do so at the expense of what is unsaid and of questions left open.

Despite the National Defense Strategy’s emphasis on this as the “decisive decade,” the MDR does not specify dates or timelines, and budget documents suggest that key new capabilities appear to be pushed to the 2030s. Other notable absences include the usual reference to arms control limitations, the need for increasing production quantities, the need for maintaining flexible acquisition authorities, and specifics on who exactly will manage this new “missile defeat” enterprise.

Weapons of Choice

One of the strengths of the 2019 MDR was its broader description of missile threats, to include ballistic, cruise, and hypersonic missiles. The Trump administration’s actual programmatic and budgetary implementation of hypersonic and cruise missile defense, however, were quite modest. The 2019 review also neglected UAS as a species of air defense, or what the new review calls “missile-related” threats. As seen in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, Iranian attacks in 2019 , and the Ukrainian war this year, that neglect is no longer tenable.

The 2022 review draws attention to the more complete spectrum of air and missile threats. It describes UAS as an “inexpensive, flexible, and plausibly deniable” means to “carry out tactical-level attacks below the threshold for major response, making them an increasingly preferred capability.” Still, other delivery systems must also be contemplated going forward, including spaceplanes and fractional or multiple orbital delivery systems “that move in and out of the atmosphere.”

The threat description in the MDR is, however, less sharply put than that conveyed by the May 2022 congressional testimony of Assistant Secretary of Defense John Plumb: “Offensive missiles are increasingly weapons of choice for Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran, for use in conflict and to coerce and intimidate their neighbors.”

Strategic Deterrence and Defense

Like the Obama and Trump administration reviews, the Biden MDR notes that "the United States will continue to rely on strategic deterrence . . . to address and deter large intercontinental-range, nuclear missile threats to the homeland.” While this distinction may apply specifically to Chinese and Russian intercontinental ballistic missiles, it need not apply to other delivery systems, to non-nuclear strategic attack, or to the likes of North Korea.

Even as threats increase, the new MDR states “the United States will also continue to stay ahead of North Korean missile threats to the homeland through a comprehensive missile defeat approach, complemented by the credible threat of direct cost imposition through nuclear and non-nuclear means.” The use of “missile defeat” represents a subtle but important shift which applies broadly to the missile defense enterprise. A broad defense and defeat-dominant posture toward North Korea remains intact, but attack operations and more novel measures left of launch will help size the requirements for active missile defense interceptors within the comprehensive missile defeat enterprise.

Homeland ballistic missile defense is here to stay. The Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) system is “an essential element” of missile defeat, and its “continued modernization and expansion” is necessary to maintain both “a visible measure of protection for the U.S. population” and an assurance to “allies and partners that the United States will not be coerced by threats to the homeland.” The Biden administration initiated a competitive development process to procure 20 Next Generation Interceptors (NGIs) in March 2021. The MDR notes that the NGI may not merely “augment” but “potentially replace” today’s fleet of 44 Ground Based Interceptors.

Air Defenses

The 2022 MDR corrects past inattention to aerial threats, including unmanned aerial systems (UAS) and homeland cruise missile defense. The review says that “homeland and regionally forward deployed forces require the fielding of technical and integrated C-UAS solutions.” While not discussed in the review, the U.S. Army is moving out rapidly as the acquisition authority for countering UAS (C-UAS). Possible capability improvements are legion, but capacity and training for the mission remain paramount. The new MDR likewise embraces cruise missile defense for the homeland (CMD-H), which first appeared in the 2022 and 2023 budget requests. The past focus on rogue state ballistic missile attacks should give way to a focus on a nonnuclear strategic attack by major powers: “To deter attempts by adversaries to stay under the nuclear threshold and achieve strategic results with conventional capabilities, the United States will examine active and passive defense measures to decrease the risk from any cruise missile strike against critical assets, regardless of origin.”

The discussion of future technologies prioritizes sensors above all, followed by battle management and command and control (C2). The missions for AMD sensors are to “detect, characterize, track, and engage current and emerging advanced air and missile threats regionally, and to improve early warning, identification, tracking, discrimination, and attribution for missile threats to the homeland.” Requiring engagement support for regional threats but not for attacks on the homeland seems especially odd since the document repeatedly highlights the specter of nonnuclear strategic attack on the homeland. CMD-H must also include engagement capabilities; its sensors must include those capable of combat identification and fire control quality tracks. That paragraph highlights modern over-the-horizon radars for “improving warning and tracking against cruise missile and other threats to the homeland.” The same criterion must be applied to the emerging space sensors. It is not good enough to provide “strategic and theater missile warning and tracking.” Sensor architectures must also support fire control.

The 2019 review referenced “transregional” threats, which blur the legacy distinction between homeland and regional concerns. As it turns out, cruise missiles, UAS, and aerial threats that threaten U.S. forces and allies in other regions are a global concern. North America is a region, too, and cruise missile defense for the homeland is a capability the United States has neglected for too long. Embracing the priority of homeland missile defense requires attention to more than just rogue state ballistic missiles. It remains to be seen whether the Air Force moves out to field not just sensors but active defenses for CMD-H.

Complex and Integrated Attacks

The new MDR notably recognizes how various air and missile threats would be used in conjunction for complex and integrated attacks. The text places special attention to UAS: “Adversaries also are utilizing multiple types of missile salvos—such as one-way attack UAS in combination with rockets—in an effort to defeat missile defense systems.” America’s perceived birthright to air superiority is long gone. Recognition in a policy document of how adversary air and missile threats could suppress and disintegrate active defenses is long overdue. Its implications are profound.

It is critical to acknowledge that adversaries will attempt to suppress U.S. and allied AMD capabilities. The 2018 NDS endorsed dispersed basing and operations, but the 2019 MDR did not apply that logic to AMD. The 2022 review does so explicitly: “Future air and missile defense capabilities must also be more mobile, flexible, survivable, and affordable, and emphasize disaggregation, dispersal, and maneuver to mitigate the threat from adversary missiles.”

AMD is necessary not only for fixed infrastructure, but for “joint maneuver forces.” It is all well and good to move swiftly around the battlefield, but loitering munitions and cruise missile targeting has dramatically improved. Mobility is no longer a panacea. With limited room to move on a small island like Guam—where launchers have little place to be repositioned—it may not be worth the time and expense to require AMD elements to be fully mobile. When one must defend what one cannot move or hide, fixed emplacements may be good enough.

The defense of Guam is, indeed, one of the most important new initiatives of the Biden administration. Despite years of urging by U.S. Indo-Pacific Command, the matter only first appeared in the 2022 and 2023 budget requests. As with CMD-H, the problem of Guam further defies the homeland-regional dichotomy of yesteryear. Guam has a “unique status as both an unequivocal part of the United States as well as a vital regional location.” The significance of Guam as a test case for full-spectrum, 360-degree AMD cannot be overstated.

International Cooperation

Three of the MDR’s 12 pages are devoted to describing international missile defense cooperation. Its discussion of cooperation with Canada is accompanied by reference to the “acute” (read: Russian) threat of “increasingly sophisticated conventional missile capabilities that are able to target critical infrastructure in North America.” Again, the document commits to improving “early warning surveillance for potential incursions or attacks,” but does not discuss the need for fire-control quality tracking and engagement support.

In the Indo-Pacific, the MDR highlights cooperation with Japan, Australia, and South Korea. Within NATO, the Patriot, NASAMS, and the SAMP-T systems get shoutouts in the endorsement of 360-degree AMD (read: to include Russia). The European Sky Shield Initiative may be an important element of this, although C2 and sensors for NATO probably deserve prioritization. Recent developments in Europe include Germany’s consideration of Arrow-3, Poland’s defense buildup across the board, and Finland and Sweden’s likely accession to NATO. Slovakia, moreover, likely needs new defenses to replace the S-300 units it donated to Ukraine. The document recognizes the longstanding cooperative efforts with Israel, encourages Gulf Cooperation Council cooperation, and notes the “ongoing normalization efforts between Israel and key Arab states” to create new opportunities for AMD cooperation.

The global market for AMD capabilities has continued to increase. The MDR notes how Russia uses “several lower-tier air defense systems for its own use and export as a foreign policy instrument.” The sale of the S-400 to countries like Turkey and India, for instance, has certainly been a wedge within the alliances. How well Russia is able to maintain the operation and upgrades of those exports in the face of sanctions on its defense industry will remain to be seen.

Honorable Unmentions

The brevity of the 2022 review means that it leaves several issues unmentioned. One notable absence is timelines and phases. It is one thing to say that the United States must defend Guam, that it must have hypersonic defense, and that space sensors are critical, but there are no express milestones or dates to assess whether they will be available within the decade, let alone at the speed of relevance.

Also missing are the usual recitations about arms control. The 2010 review declared that “the Administration will continue to reject any negotiated restraints on U.S. ballistic missile defenses,” and the 2019 review affirmed that “the United States will not accept any limitation or constraint on the development or deployment of missile defense capabilities needed to protect the homeland against rogue missile threats.” Instead, with language reminiscent of the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty’s preamble, the document highlights “the interrelationship between strategic offensive arms and strategic defensive systems.” Without endorsing limitations, the 2022 MDR suggests “strengthening mutual transparency and predictability.”

Another omission is any reference to acquisition authorities, the protection of which was affirmed in both the 2010 and 2019 reviews and in numerous legislative pronouncements. This may reflect the legacy of what is known as the “Trump DTM,” the Directive Type Memorandum . Even when the Pentagon was pushing acquisition authorities down across the services, the Trump administration began to undermine the acquisition authorities of the Missile Defense Agency. The 2022 MDR does, however, acknowledge the need for “adaptive acquisition approaches.” Rescinding the Trump DTM would help protect such approaches.

The document omits past discussions on directed-energy missile defense systems. Given the intensity of the air and missile threat spectrum, non-kinetic effects offer considerable promise. The Trump administration removed directed energy from the Missile Defense Agency’s budget. As technology has advanced in service and DOD-wide applications, concepts like high-powered microwaves, short-pulse lasers, and other types might now have applications for active defense missions.

The MDR’s policy direction does not seem to address who will manage the department’s missile defeat enterprise. While embracing of the full means of countering and defeating missile threats has much to commend it, an unbalanced pivot to “missile defeat” carries could have pitfalls. A prudent “fly before you buy” approach should apply to exotic non-kinetic and left-of-launch capabilities just as it does to hit-to-kill interceptors. Reliance on highly secret solutions that sacrifices deterrence for warfighting may be necessary, but nonkinetic and left-of-launch capabilities could be unproven, untestable, incapable of demonstration, and unsusceptible to foreign military sales.

A final unmentioned item worthy of policy guidance relates to production. One of the many lessons of the Ukraine conflict is how quickly missiles and munitions are expended in a conflict with a major power. The necessity of mass-producing AMD elements must be addressed. European countries who have given their air defenses to Ukraine, for instance, will no doubt be expecting a backfill. NATO’s air defense initiatives signal a demand for significant procurement and the potential for collaborative and bulk approaches.

As Assistant Secretary Plumb said in May , “Missiles have become a common and expected facet of modern warfare,” which makes “missile defeat and missile defense efforts more important than ever.” If the Trump MDR foundered for disconnects from budgets and programs, the Biden MDR deserves similar scrutiny so that these capabilities do not remain paper programs . While advancing certain mission areas on paper, taking the next steps requires implementing CMD-H, the defense of Guam, space sensors, and hypersonic defense with the seriousness they demand. The missile threat spectrum is not a boutique problem, but a central military challenge from China and Russia. Whether the Biden administration will properly resource and implement the goals of its MDR and NDS is now the question.

Tom Karako is a senior fellow with the International Security Program and the director of the Missile Defense Project at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, D.C.

Commentary   is produced by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), a private, tax-exempt institution focusing on international public policy issues. Its research is nonpartisan and nonproprietary. CSIS does not take specific policy positions. Accordingly, all views, positions, and conclusions expressed in this publication should be understood to be solely those of the author(s).

© 2022 by the Center for Strategic and International Studies. All rights reserved.

Programs & Projects

• Air Transport
• Defense and Space
• Business Aviation
• Aircraft & Propulsion
• Connected Aerospace
• Emerging Technologies
• Manufacturing & Supply Chain
• Advanced Air Mobility
• Commercial Space
• Sustainability
• Interiors & Connectivity
• Airports & Networks
• Airlines & Lessors
• Safety, Ops & Regulation
• Maintenance & Training
• Supply Chain
• Workforce & Training
• Sensors & Electronic Warfare
• Missile Defense & Weapons
• Budget, Policy & Operations
• Airports, FBOs & Suppliers
• Flight Deck
• Marketplace
• Advertising
• Marketing Services
• Fleet, Data & APIs
• Research & Consulting
• Network and Route Planning

Market Sector

• AWIN - Premium
• AWIN - Aerospace and Defense
• AWIN - Business Aviation
• AWIN - Commercial Aviation
• Advanced Air Mobility Report - NEW!
• Aerospace Daily & Defense Report
• Aviation Daily
• The Weekly of Business Aviation
• Air Charter Guide
• Aviation Week Marketplace
• Route Exchange
• The Engine Yearbook
• Aircraft Bluebook
• Airportdata.com
• Airport Strategy and Marketing (ASM)
• CAPA – Centre for Aviation
• Fleet Discovery Civil
• Fleet Discovery Military
• Fleet & MRO Forecast
• MRO Prospector
• Air Transport World
• Aviation Week & Space Technology
• Aviation Week & Space Technology - Inside MRO
• Business & Commercial Aviation
• CAPA - Airline Leader
• Routes magazine
• Downloadable Reports
• Recent webinars
• MRO Americas
• MRO Australasia
• MRO Baltics & Eastern Europe Region
• MRO Latin America
• MRO Middle East
• Military Aviation Logistics and Maintenance Symposium (MALMS)
• Asia Aerospace Leadership Forum & MRO Asia-Pacific Awards
• A&D Mergers and Acquisitions
• A&D Programs
• A&D Manufacturing
• A&D Raw Materials
• A&D SupplyChain
• A&D SupplyChain Europe
• Aero-Engines Americas
• Aero-Engines Europe
• Aero-Engines Asia-Pacific
• Digital Transformation Summit
• Engine Leasing Trading & Finance Europe
• Engine Leasing, Trading & Finance Americas
• Routes Americas
• Routes Europe
• Routes World
• CAPA Airline Leader Summit - Airlines in Transition
• CAPA Airline Leader Summit - Americas
• CAPA Airline Leader Summit - Latin America & Caribbean
• CAPA Airline Leader Summit - Australia Pacific
• CAPA Airline Leader Summit - Asia & Sustainability Awards
• CAPA Airline Leader Summit - World & Awards for Excellence
• GAD Americas
• A&D Mergers and Acquisitions Conference (ADMA)
• A&D Manufacturing Conference
• Aerospace Raw Materials & Manufacturers Supply Chain Conference (RMC)
• Aviation Week 20 Twenties
• Aviation Week Laureate Awards
• ATW Airline Awards
• Program Excellence Awards and Banquet
• CAPA Asia Aviation Summit & Awards for Excellence
• Content and Data Team
• Aviation Week & Space Technology 100-Year
• Subscriber Services
• Advertising, Marketing Services & List Rentals
• Content Sales
• PR & Communications
• Content Licensing and Reprints
• AWIN Access

Scramjet-Powered Cruise Missile Emerges As New U.S. Priority

Fielding an operational scramjet-powered cruise missile has emerged as a new priority for the U.S. Defense Department’s proliferating portfolio of maneuvering hypersonic weapons.     

Senior defense officials are putting together a program to develop an operational follow-on to DARPA’s Hypersonic Air-breathing Weapon Concept (HAWC), which currently supports competing scramjet-powered missile demonstrators designed by Lockheed Martin/Aerojet Rocketdyne and Raytheon/Northrop Grumman Innovation Systems teams. 

• Pentagon officials seek hypersonic air-breathing weapon follow-on
• Awareness of boost-glide challenges sinks in

“We are in the process of trying to figure out what [an operational program] would look like,” says Mike White, assistant director for hypersonics in the office of the under secretary of defense for research and engineering. 

As the U.S. military rushed after 2017 to respond to Russian and Chinese hypersonic advances, air-breathing hypersonic cruise missiles fell to the bottom of the priority list. Funding for operational programs favored boost-glide technology over the seemingly less mature field of weapons powered by scramjets (supersonic combustion ramjets). 

But that assumption is being challenged. Along with the flight-test experience accumulated a decade ago by the Air Force Research Laboratory’s (AFRL) X-51 scramjet vehicle, recent ground tests and simulations indicate scramjet technology is more advanced than previously understood. In September, the AFRL announced it had achieved thrust levels over 13,000 lb. with a Northrop-designed engine at speeds “above Mach 4” in a hypersonic wind tunnel. In June, Raytheon reported the maturity of its scramjet-powered HAWC demonstrator had exceeded that of its boost-glide design.

In December 2018, Michael Griffin, under secretary of defense for research and engineering, described hypersonic cruise missiles as “further out” than boost-glide weapons. But the technology advanced so quickly that another official, Air Force acquisition chief Will Roper, concluded seven months later the HAWC program would be “a nearer-term not a far-term capability.”

“We’d like to see HAWC transition to a fully operational system,” says Mark Lewis, the Defense Department’s director of research and engineering for modernization. “It’s probably the issue that our hypersonic team is spending most time on right now.”

Awareness is also growing for the technical challenges still facing medium-range boost-glide missiles in the class of DARPA’s Tactical Boost Glide (TBG) missile demonstrators. The Air Force’s 2017 decision to launch the AGM-183A Air-launched Rapid Response Weapon (ARRW), an operational follow-on to the TBG, helped legitimize the Defense Department’s revived interest in hypersonic weapons, White says. 

“I think people underestimate the importance of this decision of the Air Force [to launch ARRW] in the hypersonic community,” he says. “We’ve always been kind of stuck in the [research and development] realm. The Air Force in 2017, they were the first service that said: ‘Hey, we want hypersonic weapons.’”

But the TBG-derived ARRW represents a particularly difficult technical challenge. The design uses a higher lift-over-drag ratio wing shape, which has never been successfully tested by the U.S. government. By contrast, the axisymmetric shape of the lower lift-over-drag glider developed for the Common Hypersonic Glide Body (C-HGB)—the front-end designed for the Air Force Hypersonic Conventional Strike Weapon, the Army’s Long-Range Hypersonic Weapon (LRHW) and the Navy’s Intermediate-Range Conventional Prompt Strike (IRCPS)—has logged several successful flight tests since the late 1970s. The winged TBG’s greater maneuverability, albeit with shorter range, makes it far more challenging to design. 

“It’s DARPA-hard, and TBG is hard,” Lewis says.

Ongoing studies by the Air Force’s Warfighting Integration Capability are also starting to highlight the operational benefits of cruise missiles compared to medium-range boost-glide systems. A cruise missile still requires a booster rocket to accelerate to hypersonic speed, but it does not need to carry as much oxidizer and fuel as a boost-glide rocket because it remains within the atmosphere. Air-breathing cruise missiles’ smaller size means a single aircraft, such as a Boeing B-52, can carry them in much greater numbers.  

“For a hypersonic boost-glide vehicle you can get two, maybe four, on a B-52,” White says. “But you can get 15 or maybe 20 hypersonic cruise missiles [on a B-52] because the size is much smaller.So you can carry them internally in the rotary rack. There are significant advantages for the air breathers, but they offer different technical challenges.”

The smaller size and increased packaging advantages of air breathers would give the Air Force significant tactical advantage, Lewis adds. “The No. 1 question we should be asking is: ‘How do we deliver lots of these things?’ In my mind, one way to do that is to fit a lot of them in a weapons bay. Getting 15-20 per bomb bay is a lot, but if I’m [launching them from] a single mobile launcher, I’m not sure I can deliver the numbers I need. We are not interested in capability when we build two and declare it a success—that doesn’t do anything.”

The Pentagon’s hypersonic weapons portfolio emerged in a blur of bureaucratic activity between 2017 and 2018. The first step was the Air Force’s decision to launch the medium-range ARRW program in 2017 as the follow-on to TBG. Shortly afterward, the Air Force also decided to launch the longer-range HCSW. In November 2017, the Navy conducted a successful test of the proposed C-HGB, which prompted the Navy and the Army to support funding toward the operational prototypes of the IRCPS and LRHW—for submarine and ground launch, respectively.

As it stands now, the portfolio includes air-launched medium-range and long-range boost-glide systems, an intermediate-range submarine-launched missile and a long-range weapon launched from a tractor trailer. If an operational follow-on of the HAWC is approved, with Air Force and Navy concepts under consideration, new air- and surface-launched options for medium-range targets could become available. 

In addition to the offensive programs, the Defense Department’s road map also includes development of a counter-hypersonic system—starting with the Missile Defense Agency’s Regional Glide-Phase Weapon System as well as multiple programs for booster development and continued funding of basic science and technology. Additional DARPA programs include the ground-launched Operational Fires, which seeks to integrate a TBG front-end on a two-stage booster stack that includes a throttled upper stage, and the Advanced Full-Range Engine, a dual-mode ramjet that could power a future hypersonic aircraft. 

Such a diverse yet overlapping  road map has prompted criticism. In July, the chairman of the House appropriations subcommittee on defense, Rep. Peter Visclosky (D-Ind.), warned defense officials that they “need to better define the strategy for the investment in these systems.” Visclosky’s committee proposed cutting some funding for the Army’s hypersonic program, but a joint conference committee of Congressional appropriators ultimately restored the funding and added more for other hypersonic programs. 

Lewis believes the development of a multitude of hypersonic missile programs is justified.

“Too many people think hypersonics is just one thing,” Lewis says. “They think, for example, [it’s just for the long-range, conventional prompt strike mission]. But no, it’s a range of capabilities.

“Even at the tactical level it’s, for lack of a better phrase, a high-low mix,” Lewis adds. “We should probably have a mix of air breathers and boost-glide systems. They probably have different capabilities, different ranges and so on. We have F-16s and F-15s, and they have different roles, and that should be the same with tactical hypersonic systems as well.”

Steve covers military aviation, missiles and space for the Aviation Week Network, based in Washington DC.

Guy is a Senior Editor for Aviation Week, covering technology and propulsion. He is based in Colorado Springs.

Related Content

Stay Connected. Stay Informed Grow Your Business.

• Air Warfare
• Cyber (Opens in new window)
• C4ISR (Opens in new window)
• Training & Sim
• Asia Pacific
• Mideast Africa
• The Americas
• Top 100 Companies
• Defense News Weekly
• Money Minute
• Whitepapers & eBooks (Opens in new window)
• DSDs & SMRs (Opens in new window)
• Webcasts (Opens in new window)
• Events (Opens in new window)
• Newsletters (Opens in new window)
• Events Calendar
• Early Bird Brief
• Digital Edition (Opens in new window)

US Army seeks new interceptor to counter cruise missiles

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Army is asking industry for ideas on how best to procure a second interceptor for its Indirect Fire Protection Capability aimed at destroying cruise missile threats, according to a Jan. 25 request for information posted to the government contracts website Sam.gov .

The IFPC Increment 2 system is designed to defend fixed and semi-fixed sites from rockets, artillery and mortars as well as cruise missiles and drones. The first interceptor to be used in the IFPC system is RTX’s AIM-9X missile.

The Army successfully completed a risk-reduction flight demonstration , launching a Raytheon-made AIM-9X Sidewinder interceptor from the IFPC launcher and sending it to target in a December event, according to IFPC-developer Leidos’ Dynetics .

“The new interceptor will use an open system architecture approach to establish lethal kinetic effects against select targets within the IFPC Inc 2 t hreat set, specifically Subsonic and Supersonic Cruise Missiles,” the RFI states.

The IFPC Inc 2 program office is aiming for a competitive award for a second interceptor in fiscal 2025 and plans to take a selected vendor or multiple vendors through a technology demonstration in the FY26 through FY27 timeframe, the RFI said.

“The government intends to award a development, qualification, and test effort following this demonstration,” it added.

Additionally, when considering requirements for a second interceptor, “one of the big driving factors, aside from the advanced threat perspective is magazine capacity,” Brig. Gen. Frank Lozano, program executive officer for missiles and space, told Defense News in an interview last fall.

The IFPC system can currently hold 18 AIM-9X missiles in the launcher. If the Army decided to use something like the AIM-120D, which is an air-to-air missile, that can achieve a range of more than 180 kilometers (112 miles), the magazine could only fit six, Lozano explained.

“We really don’t want to have such a small magazine on an IFPC launcher, especially with the amount of threats that we expect to see from a cruise missile perspective with any of our peer competitors,” Lozano said. “Having an adequate magazine depth against cruise missile threats and the wide array of different cruise missiles out there is very important. So we’re really looking for an AIM-120D-type capability in an AIM-9X package.”

The service is also looking for missiles that can achieve certain altitudes and ranges with a rocket motor that can decrease flight time to its target. The weapon must also deflect electronic warfare countermeasures and feature enhanced seeker performance, Lozano said.

When the Army last asked industry for information on potential candidates for a second interceptor over a year ago, RTX and Lockheed Martin submitted proposals. Companies in Israel also have solutions such as the Tamir 2 interceptor, made by Rafael Advanced Defense Systems.

The Army is hosting an industry day in Huntsville, Alabama, on Feb. 8.

Jen Judson is an award-winning journalist covering land warfare for Defense News. She has also worked for Politico and Inside Defense. She holds a Master of Science degree in journalism from Boston University and a Bachelor of Arts degree from Kenyon College.

More In Land

Austin calls European allies, seeking more Patriots for Kyiv

The u.s. secretary of defense has held multiple one-on-one calls with european allies this week, during which he raised the topic..

Defense Innovation Unit moves to ease commercial drone certifications

Diu wants to improve its process for vetting commercial drones, with the goal of making it easier for companies to sell their systems to the u.s. military..

Saab unveils technology incubator using Enforcer 3 as test bed

“we are trying to get capability to the fleet in months,” said erik smith, the chief executive of saab's u.s. branch..

Lockheed to supply Australia with air battle management system

Overhauling australia’s overhead defenses is expected to generate hundreds of local jobs as well as open the door to a multibillion-dollar export market..

Defense Innovation Unit prepares to execute $800 million funding boost

Diu director doug beck said he doesn’t foresee any issues with quickly putting to work the $983 million in fy-24 funding congress provided in march., featured video, military times’ 2024 service members of the year.

From combat medic to Paralympian: What drives Ellie Marks?

The Navy petty officer ensuring the Carney stays focused on the fight

Ukraine-born airman’s translations aided allied efforts as war erupted

Trending now, sierra nevada wins $13b contract to build air force ‘doomsday plane’, french missile double punch adds new naval capability for europe, us army to field long-range combat aircraft to first unit in fy31, france and germany sign off on future battle tank system, us army’s next-gen helicopter engine could fly in black hawk next year.

US Navy Looks to Drastically Increase Missile Production

The u.s. navy is looking at drastically increasing its procurement of tomahawks and long range anti ship missiles (lrasm)..

Aaron-Matthew Lariosa 05 Apr 2023

NAVAIR PEO U&W looks to double LRASM and sextuple Tomahawk production.

It was revealed on Monday that the service desired to ramp up procurement of the strike weapons at a Naval Aviation Systems Command (NAVAIR) briefing during Sea Air Space 2023 (SAS 2023). This follows the Navy’s recently released Fiscal Year 2024 budget, which focuses on the procurement of munitions. 

Rear Admiral Stephen Tedford, the Program Executive Officer of Unmanned Aviation and Strike Weapons, highlighted the massive leaps in production and procurement that are being considered by NAVAIR. Bundling in the Navy with the Air Force, which uses a missile that LRASM is derived from called the Joint Air to Surface Standoff Missile (JASSM), procurement for a multi-year plan would double the current production rate of the missiles. 

“We have authorities to get after multi-year procurements, LRASM will be on a multi-year. That’s coordinated with the Air Force because we both use LRASM and that’s combined with their JASSM buys and our LRASM buys, okay. In that case, we’re talking about increasing our production rates, doubling the annual production rates for LRASM year-to-year starting at 24.”

When asked by Naval News at SAS 2023 about this development, Dominic DeScisciolo, the LRASM Business Development Lead at Lockheed Martin, confirmed the doubling of production. 

“Over the course of the multi-year we will double production from where we are today, which is a little over 500 combined LRASM and JASSM, to well over a thousand combined LRASM and JASSM.”

Dominic also talked about LRASM C3 , an improved version that extends the range and “enhances the survivability” of the missile. C3 will further streamline the production process and cost in anticipation of the multi-year procurement process by the Navy. 

While LRASM/JASSM procurements are to double, the Tomahawk cruise missile is being considered for a massive production and procurement increase by sixfold. 

“For a platform like Tomahawk, we’re talking about increasing the production capacity for Tomahawk by sixfold. And I’m choosing my words carefully, by sixfold is what we’re trying to increase our Tomahawk production by.”

The reasoning behind this massive increase stems from a variety of factors, from updating previous iterations of Tomahawk to foreign military sales and procurement by other services. 

“That’s not just to meet and reduce the amount of research that we have to get through the research backlog making IVs and Vs, but also our new production Block Vs, new production of Maritime Strike Tomahawk kit, as well as JMEWS, and also meets the capacity requirements of our FMS customer base that currently exists today and gives us some capacity for potential FMS customers in the future.”

It was acknowledged how drastic this increase in production and procurement is by Tedford, especially with the condition of the defense industrial base. Naval News could not get a comment from Raytheon, the manufacturer of the Tomahawk, at SAS 2023. However, Tedford did state that the Navy is “working very closely” with industry on this issue. 

Ending off the segment of his brief on LRASM and Tomahawk, Tedford also recognized the need to have a consistent production line.

It’s very interesting if you listen to any of the testimony last week, especially from the Senate Armed Services Committee. Senator Collins, for me, made a comment that we have been operating our weapons production lines as a just-in-time production and her words were ‘We need to be just in case production capacity. And I couldn’t agree more.”

Related Articles

RAND: What Does the U.S. Navy Need in its Future Combatants?

U.S. Navy to Test Epirus’ Drone-disabling HPM Technology Against Seaborne Attack Vessels

SAS 2024: DDG mod 2 update with NAVSEA

• Skip to main content
• Keyboard shortcuts for audio player

Middle East crisis — explained

The conflict between Israel and Palestinians — and other groups in the Middle East — goes back decades. These stories provide context for current developments and the history that led up to them.

Israel launches missile strikes into Iran, U.S. military official says

Rob Schmitz

Peter Kenyon

Demonstrators wave a huge Iranian flag in an anti-Israeli gathering in front of an anti-Israeli banner on the wall of a building at the Felestin (Palestine) Square in Tehran, Iran, on Monday. Vahid Salemi/AP hide caption

Demonstrators wave a huge Iranian flag in an anti-Israeli gathering in front of an anti-Israeli banner on the wall of a building at the Felestin (Palestine) Square in Tehran, Iran, on Monday.

The Israeli military has conducted missile strikes against Iran, a senior U.S. military official told NPR on Thursday. There are also reports of explosions in Iraq and Syria.

The strikes appear to be the response Israel vowed to carry out after an Iranian attack on Sunday, when Tehran fired hundreds of drones and missiles at Israel. Most of Iran's volleys were intercepted or caused little damage. The U.S. military official spoke on condition of anonymity Thursday.

The extent of Israel's strikes and the weapons used weren't clear.

Iran state news agency IRNA reported a military official in the central Iranian city of Isfahan, Brigadier General Mihan Dost, as saying loud sounds heard east of the city were the sound of air defenses intercepting what he called a "suspicious target" and that no damage was reported in the area.

What we know so far about Israel's strike on Iran — and what could happen next

Other Iranian news agencies had not reported any such strike and have concluded the sounds reported near Isfahan were the interception of one or more drones.

Israel's military and prime minister's office have not yet responded to NPR's request for comment.

The International Atomic Energy Agency has confirmed on social media that there is no damage to Iran's nuclear sites.

Meanwhile, Israel's hardline National Security Minister, Itamar Ben-Gvir, wrote on social media platform X, formerly known as Twitter, that Israel's latest apparent strike against Iran was "weak" and too limited.

Commercial flights continue in and out of Israel, and the country's Home Front Command system, which is responsible for issuing threat alerts to civilians during tense military times, didn't change its threat level.

In Iran, flights were temporarily grounded in the morning, but resumed just a couple of hours later.

The U.S. and other western allies had been urging Israel to forego a military strike to avoid a regional conflict springing out of the Israel-Hamas war .

Those concerns rose when an air strike – which Iran blamed on Israel – killed two Iranian military commanders in the country's consulate in Damascus, Syria, on April 1.

How Iran and Israel became archenemies

Iran said Sunday's attack on Israel was in response to that.

The region has been on the edge of wider conflict since Hamas attacked Israel on Oct. 7, killing 1,200 people and taking more than 240 others hostage, according to Israel. Israel's military campaign in response in Gaza has killed more than 33,000 people, according to Gaza health officials.

Israel and Iran-backed Hezbollah have traded frequent fire over the northern Israel border. Houthi militants, also backed by Iran, have been going after international commercial vessels passing through the Red Sea in recent months. The group's leaders claim they're targeting ships with links to Israel in response to the country's ongoing invasion of Gaza.

• Election 2024
• Entertainment
• Newsletters
• Photography
• Personal Finance
• AP Investigations
• AP Buyline Personal Finance
• AP Buyline Shopping
• Press Releases
• Israel-Hamas War
• Russia-Ukraine War
• Global elections
• Asia Pacific
• Latin America
• Middle East
• Election Results
• Delegate Tracker
• AP & Elections
• Auto Racing
• 2024 Paris Olympic Games
• Movie reviews
• Book reviews
• Personal finance
• Financial Markets
• Business Highlights
• Financial wellness
• Artificial Intelligence
• Social Media

North Korea says it tested ‘super-large’ cruise missile warhead and new anti-aircraft missile

Korean Central News Agency released photos showing at least two missiles being fired off launcher trucks on a runway. The missiles in the image were not identified. State media said North Korea’s missile administration on Friday conducted a ‘power test’ for the warhead designed for the Hwasal-1 Ra-3 strategic cruise missile and a test-launch of the Pyoljji-1-2 anti-aircraft missile.

The South Korean and U.S. air forces held joint air drills in Gunsan, South Korea on Friday, where they practiced ways to detect and counter enemy threats.

A TV screen shows an image of North Korea’s missile launch during a news program at the Seoul Railway Station in Seoul, South Korea, Saturday, April 20, 2024. North Korea said Saturday it tested a “super-large” cruise missile warhead and a new anti-aircraft missile in a western coastal area as it expands military capabilities in the face of deepening tensions with the United States and South Korea. (AP Photo/Ahn Young-joon)

• Copy Link copied

South Korean army soldiers pass by the barbed-wire fence in Paju, South Korea, near the border with North Korea, Friday, April 19, 2024. (AP Photo/Ahn Young-joon)

A U.S. Army soldier from the Eighth Army and South Korean army soldiers throw simulated grenades during the Expert Soldier, Infantry, and Medic Badge (E3B) competition at the Rodriguez Live Fire Complex in Pocheon, South Korea, Friday, April 19, 2024. (AP Photo/Ahn Young-joon)

U.S. Army soldiers from the Eighth Army compete during the Expert Soldier, Infantry, and Medic Badge (E3B) competition at the Rodriguez Live Fire Complex in Pocheon, South Korea, Friday, April 19, 2024. (AP Photo/Ahn Young-joon)

SEOUL, South Korea (AP) — North Korea said Saturday it tested a “super-large” cruise missile warhead and a new anti-aircraft missile in a western coastal area as it expands military capabilities in the face of deepening tensions with the United States and South Korea.

North Korean state media said the country’s missile administration on Friday conducted a “power test” for the warhead designed for the Hwasal-1 Ra-3 strategic cruise missile and a test-launch of the Pyoljji-1-2 anti-aircraft missile. It said the tests attained an unspecified “certain goal.”

Photos released by the North’s official Korean Central News Agency showed at least two missiles being fired off launcher trucks at a runway.

North Korea conducted a similar set of tests Feb. 2, but at the time did not specify the names of the cruise missile or the anti-aircraft missile, indicating it was possibly seeing technological progress after testing the same system over weeks.

KCNA insisted Friday’s tests were part of the North’s regular military development activities and had nothing to do with the “surrounding situation.”

Tensions on the Korean Peninsula are at their highest in years, with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un dialing up his weapons demonstrations, which have included more powerful missiles aimed at the U.S. mainland and U.S. targets in the Pacific. The United States, South Korea and Japan have responded by expanding their combined military training and sharpening their deterrence strategies built around strategic U.S. assets.

Cruise missiles are among a growing collection of North Korean weapons designed to overwhelm regional missile defenses. They supplement the North’s vast lineup of ballistic missiles, including intercontinental ballistic missiles aimed at the continental United States.

Analysts say anti-aircraft missile technology is an area where North Korea could benefit from its deepening military cooperation with Russia , as the two countries align in the face of their separate, intensifying confrontations with the U.S. The United States and South Korea have accused North Korea of providing artillery shells and other equipment to Russia to help extend its warfighting in Ukraine.

Watch CBS News

Israel strikes Iran with a missile, U.S. officials say, as Tehran downplays Netanyahu's apparent retaliation

Updated on: April 19, 2024 / 7:45 PM EDT / CBS/AP

Two U.S. officials told CBS News on Thursday night that an Israeli missile had struck Iran. The strike came less than a week after Iran's unprecedented retaliatory  drone and missile attack on Israel, to which Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had vowed to respond.

The U.S. officials did not provide any information about the location or extent of the Israeli strike, and the Israel Defense Forces would not comment on the attack when asked by CBS News.

Iran's state-run IRNA news agency said air defense batteries fired across several provinces, but it didn't elaborate on why the batteries had fired. Iranians did report hearing the sound of explosions in several locations, but there was no urgent meeting called of Iran's ruling High National Council, state television said, and it appeared the Iranian government was trying to downplay the impact of the Israeli attack.

State media and Iranian sources speaking with various news outlets mentioned only small drones flying around a couple sites in the country, without any reference to a missile strike. There were no immediate reports of damage.

Iran's President, Ebrahim Raisi, speaking during a visit on Friday to the city of Damghan, east of Tehran and hundreds of miles north of Isfahan, didn't even reference the Israeli strike. Instead, he spoke of Iran's assault a week earlier against Israel, which he called "necessary, obligatory" and a "sign of the power of the Islamic republic and its armed forces." 

A senior Israeli official told The Washington Post the Israeli counterattack "was intended to signal to Iran that Israel can attack its territory." 

The Reuters news agency cited an unnamed Iranian official as saying there were no plans in Tehran to respond to the Israeli retaliation. 

"I think it's a measured response," Efraim Halevi, an Israeli intelligence expert and former director of Israel's Mossad intelligence agency, told CBS News on Friday. "It is in no way proportionate to the attack we had to deal with a couple of days ago, but it is enough to send the message to the leadership in Iran."

Dubai-based airlines Emirates and FlyDubai began diverting flights around western Iran early Friday morning, after news of the Israeli strike. The carriers offered no explanation, though local warnings to aviators suggested the airspace may have been closed.

Iran announced that it had grounded commercial flights in Tehran and across areas of its western and central regions, but state television later said normal flight operations had resumed.

"No damage to Iran's nuclear sites"

IRNA said Iranian air defenses had fired at a major air base in the city of Isfahan, which has long been home to Iran's fleet of American-made F-14 Tomcat fighter jets, which were purchased before the 1979 Islamic Revolution.

Isfahan is also home to several sites associated with Iran's alleged nuclear program, including its underground Natanz enrichment site, which has been repeatedly targeted by suspected Israeli attacks .

Iran's state media, however, denied any attack on the country's nuclear facilities and described all sites as "fully safe." 

The U.N.'s International Atomic Energy Agency also said it could "confirm that there is no damage to Iran's nuclear sites."

Iran denies having a nuclear weapons program and insists all its enrichment work is for civilian purposes, but it has continued enriching uranium and plutonium to higher levels of purity, pushing it closer to the theoretical ability to produce a nuclear weapon. Israel has vowed never to allow Iran to obtain that capacity.

State television said three small drones were shot down in an area east of Isfahan, and the network ran what it said were live pictures showing calm, normal conditions in Isfahan.

Three Iranian officials told The New York Times the attack on the air base included small drones that may have been launched from inside Iran, saying radar systems had not detect any unidentified aircraft in Iranian airspace.  

Reaction to Israel's strike on Iran

"No one wants a war with Iran at the moment," Natan Eshel, a close associate and former chief of staff of Netanyahu's, said in a statement shared Friday by the prime minister's Likud party. "We have proven to them that we can penetrate and damage their domain and they have not succeeded in ours. The messages are more important than the bickering. We currently have more important tasks as well in Gaza and in Lebanon, the people are blessed to have a leader like Netanyahu."

One of the most hard-line members of Netanyahu's cabinet, however, far-right politician and current National Security Minister  Itamar Ben-Gvir , posted a one word message on social media as news of the strike on Iran emerged, saying simply: "Lame." 

Netanyahu had been under opposing pressures from the U.S., which had sought a calibrated response based on the minimal impact of the Iranian missile and drone barrage, and ultranationalist members of his government such as Ben-Gvir who have long advocated for tough military action against Iran. 

Oman, which often acts as an intermediary between Tehran and the West, condemned the "Israeli attack" on Friday, according to French news agency AFP.

Turkey's Foreign Ministry issued a statement saying it was "becoming increasingly evident that the tensions that were initially caused by Israel's illegal attack on the Iranian Embassy in Damascus risk turning into a permanent conflict," and urging "all parties to refrain from steps that could lead to a wider conflict." 

Turkey said the international community's priority "should be to stop the massacre in Gaza and to ensure lasting peace in our region by establishing a Palestinian state."

Speaking as he hosted a meeting of his fellow G7 foreign ministers, including U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken, Italy's top diplomat Antonio Tajani told journalists on Friday that the U.S. had been informed of Israel's military action at "the last minute, but there was no involvement on the part of the United States — it was simply information that was provided."

Blinken, speaking later, was pressed to confirm the Israeli strike but would say only that the U.S. was "not involved in any offensive operation."  

Tajani said he believed "the small-scale of the event," referring to Israel's retaliation, was "also the result of the efforts of the G7," which along with the U.S. had urged Netanyahu to carry out a measured response.   

In a joint statement, the G7 foreign ministers urged Israel and Iran to avoid any further escalation.

Reports of strikes in Syria and Iraq

Around the time that the sound of explosions were heard in Iran, Syria's state-run SANA news agency cited a military official as saying Israel had carried out a missile strike targeting an air defense unit in the country's south, causing material damage.

The Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, a U.K.-based opposition war monitoring organization, said the strike hit a military radar installation. It wasn't clear if there were casualties, the Observatory said. Israel has carried out a number of strikes inside Syria in recent years, often targeting cites associated with Iran-backed groups.

Meanwhile in Iraq, where a number of Iranian-backed militias are based, residents of Baghdad reported hearing explosion sounds, but the source of the noises wasn't immediately clear. 

The background to the Israeli strike

Iran last weekend launched an unprecedented retaliatory strike against Israel in response to a deadly attack on an Iranian consulate in Syria that killed seven officers, including two generals, from Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.

Iran's attack on Israel included 170 drones, over 30 cruise missiles and 120 ballistic missiles, according to the IDF and U.S. officials. None of the drones crossed into Israeli territory before they were shot down by Israel and its allies, including the U.S., the IDF said. 

Five of the ballistic missiles struck Israel, with four of them hitting Israel's Nevatim Air Base, where Israeli F-35s are based, U.S. officials told CBS News. The officials believe the base was likely Iran's primary target, as the strike against the consulate in Syria is believed to have been carried out by an F-35.

The U.S. and other Israeli allies had urged Netanyahu to exercise restraint with any response to the Iranian attack, and U.S. officials had said the U.S. would not participate in an Israeli retaliation.

In the aftermath of Iran's attack, which the IDF said caused "very little damage," President Biden pressed the Israeli prime minister, "to think about what that success says all by itself to the rest of the region," according to National Security Council spokesperson John Kirby.

— Margaret Brennan, James LaPorta, David Martin, Michal Ben-Gal, Olivia Gazis, Haley Ott, Tucker Reals and Brian Dakss contributed reporting.

• Missile Launch
• Middle East

More from CBS News

Detroit Lions, Amon-Ra St. Brown agree to $120M contract extension

Heading to the NFL Draft in Detroit? Officials say to have a solid parking plan

Suspected drunk driver lands car vertically after hitting guide wire

Florida man sentenced to prison in international fraud conspiracy that targeted Michigan seniors

North Korea fires suspected short-range missiles into ocean, South says

SEOUL, South Korea — North Korea fired multiple suspected short-range ballistic missiles toward its eastern waters on Monday, South Korea ’s military said, the latest in a recent series of weapons launches by the North.

South Korea’s Joint Chiefs of Staff said in a statement that it detected the launches from North Korea’s capital region but gave no further details, such as how far the weapons flew. It said South Korea has strengthened its surveillance posture and maintains a firm readiness in close coordination with the United States and Japan .

Japan also confirmed the launches, with the office of Prime Minister Fumio Kishida instructing officials to employ maximum efforts to gather information and ensure the safety of aircraft and vessels, according to a statement released on X. 

North Korea in recent months has been maintaining an accelerated pace in weapons testing as it continues to expand its military capabilities amid stalemated diplomacy with the United States and South Korea.

North Korea announced Saturday that it tested a “super-large” cruise missile warhead and a new anti-aircraft missile in a western coastal area on Friday. Earlier in April, North Korea also test-launched what it called a solid-fuel intermediate-range missile with hypersonic warhead capabilities, a weapon that experts say is meant to attack remote enemy targets in the U.S. Pacific territory of Guam and beyond. 

In response to North Korea’s evolving nuclear threats, the United States and South Korea have been strengthening their bilateral military drills and trilateral exercises with Japan.

On Monday, the chairman of South Korea’s Joint Chiefs of Staff, Kim Myung-soo, met with U.S. Space Command Commander Stephen N. Whiting for discussions on countering North Korean threats, according to South Korea’s military.

Some experts earlier said North Korea could launch major provocations such as a banned satellite launch this month to mark key state anniversaries — the April 15 birthday of state founder Kim Il Sung, the late grandfather of Kim Jong Un , and the April 25 founding anniversary of a predecessor of the North’s military.

South Korea’s military said Monday that it has detected evidence that North Korea is preparing for its second spy satellite launch but there are no signs that a launch is imminent.

The Associated Press