This page shows textual changes in the document between the two versions indicated in the dates above. Textual matter removed in the later version is indicated with red strikethrough and textual matter added in the later version is indicated with blue.
Over the years, the U.S. military has become reliant on precision-guided munitions (PGMs) to execute military operations. PGMs are used in ground, air, and naval operations. Defined by the Department of Defense (DOD) as "[a] guided weapon intended to destroy a point target and minimize collateral damage," PGMs can include air- and ship-launched missiles, multiple launched rockets, and guided bombs. These munitions typically use radio signals from the global positioning system (GPS), laser guidance, and inertial navigation systems (INS)—using gyroscopes—to improve a weapon's accuracy to reportedly less than 3 meters (approximately 10 feet).
s accuracy to reportedly less than 3 meters (approximately 10 feet).
R45996
June 26, 2020
John R. Hoehn
Analyst in Military
Capabilities and Programs
Samuel D. Ryder
Research Assistant
Precision munitions were introduced to military operations during World War II; however, they first demonstrated
their utility operationally during the Vietnam War and gained prominence in Operation Desert Storm in 1991.
Since the 1990s, due in part to their ability to minimize collateral damage, PGMs have become critical
components in U.S. operations, particularly in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria. The proliferation of anti-access/area
denial (A2/AD) systems is likely to increase the operational utility of PGMs. In particular, peer competitors like
China and Russia have developed sophisticated air defenses and anti-ship missiles that increase the risk to U.S.
forces entering and operating in these regions. Using advanced guidance systems, PGMs can be launched at long
ranges to attack an enemy without risking U.S. forces. As a result, DOD has argued it requires longer range
munitions to meet these new threats.
The Air Force, Army, Navy, and Marine Corps all use PGMs. In FY2021, the Department of Defense (DOD)
requested approximately $4.1 billion for more than 41,337 weapons in 15 munitions programs. DOD projects
requesting approximately $3.3 billion for 20,456 weapons in FY2022, $3.9 billion for 23,306 weapons in
FY2023, $3.9 billion for 18,376 weapons in FY2024, and $3.6 billion for 16,325 weapons in FY2025. Previously
DOD obligated $1.96 billion for 13,985 weapons in FY2015, $2.98 billion for 35,067 weapons in FY2016, $3.63
billion for 44,446 weapons in FY2017, $5.05 billion for 68,988 weapons in FY2018, and $4.3 billion in FY2019
for 60,62 munitions. In FY2020, Congress authorized $5.30 billion for 56,067 weapons.
Current PGM programs can be categorized as air-launched, ground-launched, or naval-launched.
Congress may consider several issues regarding PGMs, including
This report focuses on selected precision-guided munitions (PGMs) fielded by the Air Force, Army, Navy, and Marine Corps. Over the years, the U.S. military has relied on PGMs to execute ground, air, and naval military operations. PGMs have become ubiquitous in U.S. military operations; funding for these weapons has increased dramatically from FY1998 to the present as depicted in. In FY2021, the Department of Defense (DOD) requested approximately $4.1 billion for more than 41,337 weapons in 15 munitions programs. DOD projects requesting approximately $3.3 billion for 20,456 weapons in FY2022, $3.9 billion for 23,306 weapons in FY2023, $3.9
Congressional Research Service
Precision-Guided Munitions: Background and Issues for Congress
Contents
Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1
Background ..................................................................................................................................... 2
Air-Launched Precision-Guided Munitions .............................................................................. 6
Paveway Laser-Guided Bombs ........................................................................................... 6
Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM) ................................................................................ 8
Small Diameter Bomb (SDB) and Small Diameter Bomb II ............................................ 10
AGM-114 Hellfire Missile ................................................................................................ 13
AGM-169 Joint Air-to-Ground Missile (JAGM) .............................................................. 15
AGM-158A/B Joint Air-to-Surface Strike Missile (JASSM) and AGM-158C
Long-Range Anti-Ship Missile (LRASM) ..................................................................... 16
AGM-88E Advanced Anti-Radiation Guided Missile (AARGM) .................................... 19
Ground-Launched Guided Munitions ..................................................................................... 21
Guided Multiple Launch Rocket System (GMLRS)......................................................... 21
Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS)....................................................................... 22
Precision Strike Missile (PrSM) ....................................................................................... 23
Naval Precision-Guided Munitions ......................................................................................... 24
Tomahawk Cruise Missile................................................................................................. 24
Standard Missile-6 (SM-6) ............................................................................................... 26
Naval Strike Missile (NSM) ............................................................................................. 27
Potential Issues for Congress......................................................................................................... 29
Figures
Figure 1. Inflation-Adjusted PGM Procurement ............................................................................. 1
Figure 2. PGM Operational Usage and Procurement ...................................................................... 4
Figure 3. Potential Chinese Reconnaissance Strike Complex ......................................................... 5
Figure 4. Comparison of Ranges of Military Equipment ................................................................ 6
Figure 5. Paveway II ....................................................................................................................... 7
Figure 6. Loading a Paveway II into an F-35B ............................................................................... 8
Figure 7. GBU-31/32 Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAM) ........................................................ 9
Figure 8. JDAM Tail Kits .............................................................................................................. 10
Figure 9. Small Diameter Bomb ..................................................................................................... 11
Figure 10. Model of a GBU-53 Small Diameter Bomb II ............................................................. 12
Figure 11. AGM-114 Hellfire ........................................................................................................ 14
Figure 12. Diagram of an AGM-169 JAGM ................................................................................. 15
Figure 13. AGM-158 Attached to an F/A-18D Hornet .................................................................. 18
Figure 14. JASSM in Flight........................................................................................................... 18
Figure 15. Model of an AGM-88E ARRGM ................................................................................. 20
Figure 16. GMLRS Launching ...................................................................................................... 21
Figure 17. ATACMS Long-Range Precision Tactical Missile System .......................................... 22
Figure 18. Notional Design of PrSM ............................................................................................. 24
Figure 19. Tomahawk Block IV Cruise Missile ............................................................................ 25
Congressional Research Service
Precision-Guided Munitions: Background and Issues for Congress
Figure 20. SM-6 Launching from a Ship....................................................................................... 27
Figure 21. Naval Strike Missile in Flight ...................................................................................... 28
Figure 22. Illustration of Naval Strike Missile with Attributes ..................................................... 28
Tables
Table 1. JDAM Requested and Programmed Procurement in the FYDP ...................................... 10
Table 2. Small Diameter Bomb and Small Diameter Bomb II Requested and Programmed
Procurement in the FYDP .......................................................................................................... 12
Table 3. AGM-114 Hellfire Missile Requested and Programmed Procurement in
the FYDP .................................................................................................................................... 14
Table 4. AGM-169 JAGM Requested and Programmed Procurement in the FYDP .................... 16
Table 5. JASSM and LRASM Requested and Programmed Procurement in the FYDP ............... 19
Table 6. ARRGM Requested and Programmed Procurement in the FYDP .................................. 20
Table 7. GMLRS Requested and Programmed Procurement in the FYDP ................................... 22
Table 8. ATACMS Requested and Programmed Procurement in the FYDP ................................. 23
Table 9. PrSM Requested and Programmed Procurement............................................................. 24
Table 10. Tomahawk Missile Requested and Programmed Procurement in the FYDP ................ 26
Table 11. SM-6 Requested and Programmed Procurement in the FYDP ...................................... 26
Table 12. Naval Strike Missile Requested and Programmed Procurement in the FYDP .............. 29
Table A-1. PGM Procurement Cost and Quantities, by Service (FY1998-FY2009) ..................... 31
Table A-2. PGM Procurement Cost and Quantities, by Service (FY2010-FY2021) ..................... 32
Table B-1. PGM Procurement Cost and Quantities, by Program (FY1998-FY2009) ................... 33
Table B-2. PGM Procurement Cost and Quantities, by Program (FY2010-FY2021) ................... 35
Appendixes
Appendix A. Prior Year Procurement by Service .......................................................................... 31
Appendix B. Prior Year Procurement by Program ........................................................................ 33
Contacts
Author Information........................................................................................................................ 37
Congressional Research Service
Precision-Guided Munitions: Background and Issues for Congress
Introduction
This report focuses on selected precision-guided munitions (PGMs) fielded by the Air Force,
Army, Navy, and Marine Corps. Over the years, the U.S. military has relied on PGMs to execute
ground, air, and naval military operations. PGMs have become ubiquitous in U.S. military
operations; funding for these weapons has increased dramatically from FY1998 to the present as
depicted in. In FY2021, the Department of Defense (DOD) requested approximately $4.1 billion
for more than 41,337 weapons in 15 munitions programs. DOD projects requesting approximately
$3.3 billion for 20,456 weapons in FY2022, $3.9 billion for 23,306 weapons in FY2023, $3.9
billion for 18,376 weapons in FY2024, and $3.6 billion for 16,325 weapons in FY2025.1
billion for 18,376 weapons in FY2024, and $3.6 billion for 16,325 weapons in FY2025.1
Figure 1. Inflation-Adjusted PGM Procurement Guided Missiles, Bombs and Rockets from FY1998-FY2025 |
![]() |
Source: Department of Defense Budget FY2000-2020 P-1 Procurement budget requests, at
Notes: FY1998 through FY2020 totals are actual dollars appropriated. FY2021 is the requested amount. FY2022 |
Congress, through the defense authorization and appropriations bills, has historically exercised its
role in the decision to approve, reject, or modify DOD'’s proposals for PGMs. In addition, these
programs pose a number of potential oversight issues for Congress. Congress'’s decisions on these
issues could affect future U.S. military capabilities and funding requirements. Potential issues for
Congress include
Background
DOD defines a PGM as "“[a] guided weapon intended to destroy a point target and minimize
collateral damage."2”2 In addition to these virtues, PGMs also offer other advantages over unguided
weapons, namely range and the reduction in numbers of combat sorties required to deliver the
desired effects on the battle field. The main disadvantage of these weapons is cost; particularly
long range missiles. PGMs include air- and ship-launched missiles, multiple launched rockets,
and guided bombs. Current munitions typically use a combination of radio signals from the global
positioning system (GPS), laser guidance, and inertial navigation systems (INS)—using
gyroscopes—to improve a weapon'’s accuracy to reportedly less than 3 meters (approximately 10
feet).33 PGMs have transformed attack operations from the air; instead of using hundreds of
bomber sorties to attack a single target, a single sortie from a PGM-carrying platform can attack
multiple targets while minimizing collateral damage.
Guided munitions were first developed in the 1940s, when the U.S. Army Air Corps tested radio
guidance to glide bombs onto a target.44 Prior to precision guidance, bomber missions reported an
accuracy of 1,200 feet; 16% of munitions dropped by crews landed within 1,000 feet of their
intended target.55 According to defense analyst Barry Watts, guidance systems showed promise in
improving weapon accuracy; however, these systems were not fully fielded during the Second
World War. This can partly be attributed to technological challenges in developing guidance
systems, as well as relatively large unit costs per munition used. Guidance systems during this era
used television signals, and required a chase aircraft to provide command and control for the
weapon to strike its target.
DOD continued to develop PGMs through the 1950s and 1960s, where they gained prominence
during the Vietnam War with the introduction of the laser-guided bomb. Laser-guided bombs
became a preferred munition for bombing operations; an Air Force study in 1973 found that the
U.S. military used more than 10,500 laser-guided bombs the previous year, with 5,107 weapons
achieving a direct hit and another 4,000 achieving a circular error probable of 25 feet.66 During the 1970s and 1980s, all of the military services developed guided missiles capable of attacking fixed and moving targets. Laser-guided bombs gained prominence during Operation Desert Storm in
2
Department of Defense, DOD Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms, July 2019, at https://www.jcs.mil/Portals/
36/Documents/Doctrine/pubs/dictionary.pdf/.
3 IHS Janes, “GBU-39/B Small Diameter Bomb (SDB I), GBU-39B/B Laser SDB (LSDB),” June 7, 2019, at
https://janes.ihs.com/Janes/Display/jalw9077-jalw.
4 Barry D. Watts, Six Decades of Guided Munitions and Battle Networks: Progress and Prospects, Center for Strategic
and Budgetary Assessments, Washington, DC, March 2007, at https://csbaonline.org/uploads/documents/2007.03.01Six-Decades-Of-Guided-Weapons.pdf.
5 John T. Correll, “Daylight Precision Bombing,” Air Force Magazine, October 2008, at http://www.airforcemag.com/
MagazineArchive/Pages/2008/October%202008/1008daylight.aspx.
6 Circular error probable is the metric used to identify how accurate a specific munition is. This metric measures the
distance 50% of a type of weapon will land from the aim point. Barry D. Watts, Six Decades of Guided Munitions and
Battle Networks: Progress and Prospects, Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, Washington, DC, March
Congressional Research Service
2
Precision-Guided Munitions: Background and Issues for Congress
1970s and 1980s, all of the military services developed guided missiles capable of attacking fixed
and moving targets. Laser-guided bombs gained prominence during Operation Desert Storm in
1991. Although PGMs represented only 6% of the total munitions used during the campaign,7
1991. Although PGMs represented only 6% of the total munitions used during the campaign,7 they struck a number of critical targets, reduced the number of combat sorties required, and
limited collateral damage to civilian structures.8
8
Operations over the past decade in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria have demonstrated DOD's ’s
increasing reliance on PGMs and how important they have become for modern military
operations. The Air Force reports that nearly 139,000 weapons have been used in combat
operations in the Middle East since 2014.99 Counter-Islamic State (IS) operations in Iraq and Syria
have used numerous weapons: in 2015, coalition air forces used more than 28,000 weapons; in
2016, the campaign used an additional 30,700 weapons; and in 2017 (the height of operations),
the campaign used 39,500 weapons (see Figure 2 for a graphical representation of operational
usage compared to DOD procurement). Nearly all of the weapons employed were PGMs,
particularly Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAMs) and Hellfire Missiles.
2007, pp. 9-10, at https://csbaonline.org/uploads/documents/2007.03.01-Six-Decades-Of-Guided-Weapons.pdf.
7 During Operation Desert Storm, the stockpile of laser guided bombs was limited due to cost. A single Paveway bomb
tail kit in 1991 cost approximately $20,000, a reduction from $40,000 in 1998. See Malcolm W. Browne, “Invention
That Shaped the Gulf War: the Laser-Guided Bomb,” New York Times, February 26, 1991, pp. C-1, at
https://www.nytimes.com/1991/02/26/science/invention-that-shaped-the-gulf-war-the-laser-guided-bomb.html.
8 Eliot Cohen, Tom Keaney, et al., Gulf War Air Power Study Volume IV: Weapons, Tactics, and Training and Space
Operations, U.S. Air Force, Washington, DC, 1993, https://media.defense.gov/2010/Sep/27/2001329817/-1/-1/0/AFD100927-066.pdf.
9 Air Force Central reports the number of U.S. and coalition weapons used in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria. Air Force
Central, “Airpower Summaries,” press release, September 1, 2019, https://www.afcent.af.mil/About/AirpowerSummaries/.
Congressional Research Service
3
Precision-Guided Munitions: Background and Issues for Congress
Figure 2. PGM Operational Usage and Procurement
Operational Usage in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria |
![]() |
Source: Department of Defense Budget FY2000-2021 P-1 Procurement budget requests, at
Notes: Bomb procurement includes JDAM, Small Diameter Bomb, and Small Diameter Bomb II. Missile |
In addition to PGM use in current operations, the proliferation of anti-access/area denial (A2/AD)
systems is likely to increase the operational utility of PGMs.1010 Anti-access systems can be defined
as capabilities "“associated with denying access to major fixed-point targets, especially large
forward bases."11”11 Area denial systems can be defined as capabilities "“that threaten mobile targets
over an area of operations, principally maritime forces, to include those beyond the littorals."12 ”12
Peer competitors like China and Russia have developed sophisticated air defenses, such as the S-300PMUS300PMU (SA-20) and S-400 (SA-21),1313 the HQ-9 surface-to-air missile (China), the DF-21D and
DF-26 anti-ship ballistic missiles (China), and the 3M-54 Kaliber anti-ship cruise missile (Russia).14 Figure 3 illustrates ranges of potential A2/AD systems. These systems outrange U.S. weapons systems at what experts assess as unacceptable risk—some of these weapons have
10
Jan van Tol, Mark Gunzinger, Andrew Krepinevich, et al., AirSea Battle: A Point-of-Departure Operational
Concept, Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, Washington, DC, May 2010, https://csbaonline.org/uploads/
documents/2010.05.18-AirSea-Battle.pdf.
11 Jan Van Tol et al., AirSea Battle: A Point-of-Departure Operational Concept, Center for Strategic and Budgetary
Assessments, Washington, DC, May 18, 2010, p. 1, https://csbaonline.org/uploads/documents/2010.05.18-AirSeaBattle.pdf.
12 Jan Van Tol et al., AirSea Battle: A Point-of-Departure Operational Concept, Center for Strategic and Budgetary
Assessments, Washington, DC, May 18, 2010, p. 1, https://csbaonline.org/uploads/documents/2010.05.18-AirSeaBattle.pdf.
13 According to IHS Janes, the S-400 has a maximum range of 400 kilometers. IHS Janes “S-400,” October 7, 2019, at
https://janes.ihs.com/Janes/Display/jlad0593-jaad.
Congressional Research Service
4
Precision-Guided Munitions: Background and Issues for Congress
(Russia).14 Figure 3 illustrates ranges of potential A2/AD systems. These systems outrange U.S.
weapons systems at what experts assess as unacceptable risk—some of these weapons have
reported ranges in excess of 1,000 nautical miles.15reported ranges in excess of 1,000 nautical miles.15 As a result, U.S. ships and aircraft would need
to engage targets at long ranges in order to not put themselves in danger. For instance, naval ships
could be threatened at ranges of 809 nautical miles from bases that field DF-21D anti-ship
ballistic missiles.16
Figure 3. Potential Chinese Reconnaissance Strike Complex
ballistic missiles.16
|
![]() |
Source: Bryan Clark, Peter Haynes, and Bryan McGrath, et al., Restoring American Seapower: A New Fleet documents/CSBA6292Fleet_Architecture_Study_REPRINT_web.pdf.
Note: The figure notes state |
”
The effectiveness of these missiles is often debated, as is the amount of risk an anti-ship ballistic
missile presents to naval forces. Some analysts argue that in a combat situation, aircraft carriers
would not enter these weapons'’ engagement zones because of the threat. Others argue that while
there is some risk posed to naval forces, aircraft carriers and major surface combatants would
nonetheless be able to operate effectively. Similarly, an S-400 (SA-21) presents risks to aircraft at
ranges of up to 215 nautical miles. Many weapons in the U.S. inventory have relatively short ranges.17 Figure 4 illustrates the impact that A2/AD systems have on potential military
14
According to IHS Janes, the DF-21D has a range of 1,500 kilometers, and the DF-26 has a range of approximately
4,000 kilometers. See IHS Janes “DF-21,” February 21, 2019, at https://janes.ihs.com/Janes/Display/jsws0411-jsws,
and IHS Janes “DF-26,” February 1, 2019, at https://janes.ihs.com/Janes/Display/jswsa399-jsws.
15 Jan van Tol, Mark Gunzinger, Andrew Krepinevich, et al., AirSea Battle: A Point-of-Departure Operational
Concept, Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, Washington, DC, May 2010, https://csbaonline.org/uploads/
documents/2010.05.18-AirSea-Battle.pdf.
16 See IHS Janes “DF-21,” February 21, 2019, at https://janes.ihs.com/Janes/Display/jsws0411-jsws.
Congressional Research Service
5
Precision-Guided Munitions: Background and Issues for Congress
ranges.17 Figure 4 illustrates the impact that A2/AD systems have on potential military
operations. Some analysts argue that U.S. forces would substantially increase their operational
risk at ranges in excess of 500 nautical miles (NM).18
18 Figure 4. Comparison of Ranges of Military Equipment U.S. Military Aircraft vs. Adversary Drones and Missiles |
![]() |
Source: https://warontherocks.com/2018/03/america-is-well-within-range-of-a-big-surprise-so-why-cant-it-see/ |
The Paveway is a family of guidance kits that attach to unguided bombs. The assembly includes a
guidance seeker on the nose of the bomb, which looks for a laser to mark a target, and a tail kit to
guide the bomb onto the target. The Paveway series was originally developed during the Vietnam
War to enable tactical aircraft—like the F-4 Phantom and the A-6 Intruder—to deliver precise
munitions onto a target.1919 Paveway has received several upgrades, with the development of
Paveway III (in the 1990s), which improves low-altitude guidance,2020 and Paveway IV (in the late
1990s), which adds satellite guidance to improve accuracy.2121 The U.S. military predominately
17
Guided bombs have a maximum range of 40 nautical miles; longer-range missiles typically have a range around 150500 nautical miles.
18 Jan van Tol, Mark Gunzinger, Andrew Krepinevich, et al., AirSea Battle: A Point-of-Departure Operational
Concept, Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, Washington, DC, May 2010, https://csbaonline.org/uploads/
documents/2010.05.18-AirSea-Battle.pdf.
19 IHS Janes “GBU-10/12/16/58 Paveway II,” October 17, 2018, at https://janes.ihs.com/Janes/Display/jalwa051-jalw.
20 IHS Janes “GBU-22, GBU-24, GBU-27 Paveway III, and Enhanced Paveway III,” September 10, 2019, at
https://janes.ihs.com/Janes/Display/jalw3671-jalw.
21 IHS Janes “Paveway IV (PGB),” February 13, 2019, at https://janes.ihs.com/Janes/Display/jalw9213-jalw.
Congressional Research Service
6
Precision-Guided Munitions: Background and Issues for Congress
uses Paveway II (see Figure 5 and Figure 6) and Paveway III kits; Paveway IV is used
exclusively by foreign militaries.
According to IHS Janes, Raytheon has produced more than 350,000 Paveway kits, with Lockheed
Martin producing an additional 200,000 kits.2222 Funding for Paveway procurement appears in the
Air Force'’s General Purpose Bomb line item; however, the Air Force does not report procurement
quantities in its budget justification documentation.2323 DOD has exported Paveway II kits to more
than 30 countries, and exported Paveway III kits to at least 9 countries. Paveway IV is used by the
United Kingdom, the Philippines, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar.24
![]() |
24
Figure 5. Paveway II
Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/ |
.
IHS Janes “GBU-10/12/16/58 Paveway II,” October 17, 2018, at https://janes.ihs.com/Janes/Display/jalwa051-jalw.
U.S. Air Force FY2020 Procurement of Ammunition Line Item 353020 General Purpose Bombs, at
https://apps.dtic.mil/procurement/Y2020/AirForce/stamped/U_P40_353020_BSA-13_BA-1_APP3011F_PB_2020.pdf.
24 IHS Janes “Paveway IV (PGB),” February 13, 2019, at https://janes.ihs.com/Janes/Display/jalw9213-jalw.
22
23
Congressional Research Service
7
Precision-Guided Munitions: Background and Issues for Congress
Figure 6. Loading a Paveway II into an F-35B
|
![]() |
Source: https://dod.defense.gov/OIR/gallery/igphoto/2001907433/
|
JDAM modifies unguided bombs—such as the 500-pound Mk-82, the 1,000-pound Mk-83, and
the 2,000-pound Mk-84—with GPS guidance. (For a fully assembled JDAM, see Figure 7; for a
JDAM tail kit, see Figure 8.) When a JDAM kit is attached, the weapon is designated as GBU-31GBU31/32/38 depending on the weight of the bomb.2525 These weapons have a reported range of 13
nautical miles.2626 The Air Force and Navy began studying how to deliver such weapons in a
program known as the Advanced Bomb Family during the 1980s.2727 The first JDAMs were
delivered in 1997, and underwent operational testing between 1998 and 1999.2828 JDAM kits are
reported to have an accuracy to within 3 meters (approximately 10 feet).2929 The first operational
use of a JDAM was during Operation Allied Freedom in Kosovo by a B-2 Spirit bomber. Since
their development, JDAMs have been integrated with all U.S. fixed-wing strike platforms.
JDAMs have received several upgrades since their introduction into service. One of the major
developments has been developing a laser guidance system in addition to receiving GPS guidance. Adding laser guidance enables JDAMs to strike both moving and fixed targets. In February 2020, Boeing announced its intention to develop a "powered" JDAM to provide a low-cost
U.S. Air Force, “Joint Direct Attack Munition GBU-31/32/38 Fact Sheet,” press release, June 18, 2003,
https://www.af.mil/About-Us/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/104572/joint-direct-attack-munition-gbu-313238/.
26 IHS Janes “GBU-31/32/38 Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM),” June 18, 2019, at https://janes.ihs.com/Janes/
Display/jalw3667-jalw.
27 IHS Janes “GBU-31/32/38 Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM),” June 18, 2019, at https://janes.ihs.com/Janes/
Display/jalw3667-jalw.
28 According to the Air Force, approximately 450 JDAMs were dropped during the operational testing phase. See U.S.
Air Force, “Joint Direct Attack Munition GBU-31/32/38 Fact Sheet,” press release, June 18, 2003, https://www.af.mil/
About-Us/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/104572/joint-direct-attack-munition-gbu-313238/.
29 IHS Janes “GBU-31/32/38 Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM),” June 18, 2019, at https://janes.ihs.com/Janes/
Display/jalw3667-jalw.
25
Congressional Research Service
8
Precision-Guided Munitions: Background and Issues for Congress
guidance. Adding laser guidance enables JDAMs to strike both moving and fixed targets. In
February 2020, Boeing announced its intention to develop a “powered” JDAM to provide a lowcost alternative to cruise missiles.30 alternative to cruise missiles.30 According to Air Force Magazine, this new JDAM would use
a 500-pound bomb, and would be the size of a 2,000-pound bomb. Boeing has not stated a unit
cost for this new development.
Figure 7. GBU-31/32 Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAM) |
![]() |
|
DOD has procured more than 371,000 JDAM kits since 1998, and it plans to procure an
additional 75,000 between FY2020 and FY2024.3131 According to IHS Janes, the Air Force
originally projected procuring 270,000 JDAM kits. Production peaked at 30,000 kits prior to 2007
before declining until 2015. Increased operational use in Iraq and Syria, in particular, resulted in a
reduction in JDAM stockpiles, leading to increased procurement from FY2016 through FY2020.
Table 1 outlines the FY2020 request, along with the programmed force between FY2021 through
FY2024. The DOD projects to reduce JDAM procurement in the future years defense program
(FYDP); the current programmed force for FY2021 reduces procurement from more than 40,000
tailkits in FY2020 to approximately 10,000 tailkits in FY2021 and ends the FYDP with
approxmately 3,700 tailkits in FY2024. In addition to U.S. military use, JDAMs have been
exported to 26 countries, including Australia, Bahrain, Denmark, Finland, Israel, Italy, Japan,
Kuwait, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan, Turkey, and the United Arab
Emirates.32
Tobias Naegele, “Powered JDAM: Boeing’s New Alternative to Cruise Missiles,” Air Force Magazine, February 28,
2020, https://www.airforcemag.com/power-jdam-boeings-new-alternative-to-cruise-missiles/.
31 See Department of Defense Budget FY2000-2020 P-1 Procurement budget requests, at
https://comptroller.defense.gov/Budget-Materials/.
32 IHS Janes “GBU-31/32/38 Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM),” June 18, 2019, at https://janes.ihs.com/Janes/
Display/jalw3667-jalw.
30
Congressional Research Service
9
Precision-Guided Munitions: Background and Issues for Congress
Table 1. JDAM Requested and Programmed Procurement in the FYDP
Cost
($millions)
Quantity
FY2020
FY2021a
FY2022b
FY2023b
FY2024b
FY2025b
Grand
Total
$1,039.47
$524.87
$349.99
$321.44
$163.25
$186.71
$2,585.73
28,388
20,338
8,675
9,206
3,878
3,878
74,363
Source: Kuwait, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan, Turkey, and the United Arab Emirates.32
FY2020 |
|
|
|
|
|
Grand Total |
|
|
$1,039.47 |
$524.87 |
$349.99 |
$321.44 |
$163.25 |
$186.71 |
$2,585.73 |
Quantity |
28,388 |
20,338 |
8,675 |
9,206 |
3,878 |
3,878 |
74,363 |
Source: U.S. Air Force FY2021 Procurement of Ammunition Line Item 353620 Joint Direct Attack Munition, U.S. Air Force FY2021 Procurement of Ammunition Line Item 353620 Joint Direct Attack Munition,
and U.S. Navy FY2021 Procurement of Ammunition Line Item 0148 JT Direct Attack Munition (JDAM).
a. Denotes the Administration'’s request.
b. Denotes programmed funding and quantities.
![]() |
Figure 8. JDAM Tail Kits
Source: https://www.hill.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/909505/munitions-airmen-key-players-
|
The Small Diameter Bomb, designated as GBU-39 (Figure 9), is a 250-pound guided bomb. The
SDB can use both GPS and laser guidance, enabling it to strike both fixed and moving targets.33 33
In 1997, responding to improvements in accuracy due to GPS, the Air Force stated a need to
develop a smaller bomb to reduce collateral damage. The SDB reached initial operating capability
U.S. Air Force, “GBU-39B Small Diameter Bomb Weapon System Fact Sheet,” press release, August 28, 2006,
https://www.af.mil/About-Us/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/104573/gbu-39b-small-diameter-bomb-weapon-system/.
33
Congressional Research Service
10
Precision-Guided Munitions: Background and Issues for Congress
in 2006.34in 2006.34 According to the Air Force, the SDB has a range of approximately 40 nautical miles.35 35
The SDB was specifically designed around space constraints in both the F-22 Raptor and F-35
Lightning II aircraft to enable these fighter aircraft to carry SDBs internally, while protecting
their low observable signature.36
Figure 9. Small Diameter Bomb
their low observable signature.36
![]() |
bombsduring-wsep/.
Notes: During a Combat Hammer exercise, Alaska F-22 Raptors became the first operational F-22 unit to drop |
The Air Force developed a second small diameter bomb, the GBU-53 laser-guided smaller
diameter bomb, or SDB II (see Figure 10).37).37 The added laser guidance enables the SDB II to
strike both fixed and moving targets. SDB II uses Link 16 and ultra-high frequency datalinks,
along with infrared guidance, to provide course corrections.3838 Development for the SDB II began
in 2005, and the Air Force declared initial operating capability in 2019.3939 The U.S. exports SDB II
to Australia and South Korea as of 2019.40
40
U.S. Air Force, “GBU-39B Small Diameter Bomb Weapon System Fact Sheet,” press release, August 28, 2006,
https://www.af.mil/About-Us/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/104573/gbu-39b-small-diameter-bomb-weapon-system/.
35 U.S. Air Force, “GBU-39B Small Diameter Bomb Weapon System Fact Sheet,” press release, August 28, 2006,
https://www.af.mil/About-Us/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/104573/gbu-39b-small-diameter-bomb-weapon-system/.
36 IHS Janes “GBU-39/B Small Diameter Bomb (SDB I), GBU-39B/B Laser SDB (LSDB), June 7, 2019, at
https://janes.ihs.com/Janes/Display/jalw9077-jalw.
37 The SDB II is a separate procurement line item in both budget justifications and in Congressional authorization and
appropriations.
38 IHS Janes “StormBreaker bomb (GBU-53/B SDB II),” July 8, 2019, at https://janes.ihs.com/Janes/Display/jalwa099jalw.
39 IHS Janes “StormBreaker bomb (GBU-53/B SDB II),” July 8, 2019, at https://janes.ihs.com/Janes/Display/jalwa099jalw.
40 IHS Janes “StormBreaker bomb (GBU-53/B SDB II),” July 8, 2019, at https://janes.ihs.com/Janes/Display/jalwa099jalw.
34
Congressional Research Service
11
Precision-Guided Munitions: Background and Issues for Congress
Figure 10. Model of a GBU-53 Small Diameter Bomb II
|
![]() |
Source: https://janes.ihs.com/Janes/Display/ |
jalwa099-jalw.
The Air Force procures SDBs as of 2019. From FY2005 through FY2019, the Air Force
purchased more than 28,000 SDBs for more than $1.7 billion.4141 Both the Air Force and the Navy
requested more than 7,000 SDBs in FY2020 (the second-largest procurement on the line) for
$275 million, and plan to procure an additional 8,400 SDBs from FY2021 through FY2024.42 In 42 In
addition both services are procuring SDB IIs. Procurement of the SDB II began in FY2018 with
80 bombs, increasing to 1,200 bombs in FY2019. DOD requested 1,900 bombs in FY2020 for
approximately $331 million, and it plans to purchase more than 10,500 SDB IIs from FY2021
through FY2024 for $1.6 billion (see Table 2).43
).43
Table 2. Small Diameter Bomb and Small Diameter Bomb II Requested and
Programmed Procurement in the FYDP
SDB Cost
($millions)
SDB
Quantity
SDB II Cost
($millions)
SDB II
Quantity
FY2020
FY2021a
FY2022b
FY2023b
FY2024b
FY2025b
Total
$273.29
$95.83
$45.48
$45.47
$91.41
$93.05
$644.53
7,078
2,462
1,158
1,180
2,435
2,435
16,748
$291.73
$352.14
$388.42
$404.04
$347.41
$309.10
$2,092.84
1,687
1,490
1,749
1,775
1,662
1,376
9,739
41
See Department of Defense Budget FY2000-2020 P-1 Procurement budget requests, at
https://comptroller.defense.gov/Budget-Materials/.
42 U.S. Air Force FY2020 Procurement of Missiles Line Item SDB000 Small Diameter, at https://apps.dtic.mil/
procurement/Y2020/AirForce/stamped/U_P40_SDB000_BSA-2_BA-2_APP-3020F_PB_2020.pdf.
43 U.S. Air Force FY2020 Procurement of Missiles Line Item SDB0032 Small Diameter Bomb II,
athttps://apps.dtic.mil/procurement/Y2020/AirForce/stamped/U_P40_SDB002_BSA-2_BA-2_APP3020F_PB_2020.pdf, and U.S. Navy FY2020 Weapons Procurement Line Item 2238 Small Diameter Bomb II (SDB
II), at https://apps.dtic.mil/procurement/Y2020/Navy/stamped/U_P40_2238_BSA-2_BA-2_APP-1507N_PB_2020.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
12
Precision-Guided Munitions: Background and Issues for Congress
Source: U.S. Air Force FY2021 Procurement of Missiles Line Item SDB000 Small Diameter Bomb, U.S. Air
Programmed Procurement in the FYDP
FY2020 |
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
SDB Cost ($millions) |
$273.29 |
$95.83 |
$45.48 |
$45.47 |
$91.41 |
$93.05 |
$644.53 |
SDB Quantity |
7,078 |
2,462 |
1,158 |
1,180 |
2,435 |
2,435 |
16,748 |
SDB II Cost ($millions) |
$291.73 |
$352.14 |
$388.42 |
$404.04 |
$347.41 |
$309.10 |
$2,092.84 |
SDB II Quantity |
1,687 |
1,490 |
1,749 |
1,775 |
1,662 |
1,376 |
9,739 |
Source: U.S. Air Force FY2021 Procurement of Missiles Line Item SDB000 Small Diameter Bomb, U.S. Air Force FY2021 Procurement of Missiles Line Item SDB0032 Small Diameter Bomb II,Force FY2021 Procurement of Missiles Line Item SDB0032 Small Diameter Bomb II, and U.S. Navy FY2021
Weapons Procurement Line Item 2238 Small Diameter Bomb II (SDB II).
.
a. Denotes the Administration'’s request.
b. Denotes programmed funding and quantities.
In the early 1970s, the Army developed a requirement for an anti-tank missile, which resulted in
the AGM-114 Hellfire (see Figure 11).44).44 The first Hellfire was introduced into service in 1982 on
the Army'’s AH-64 Apache, using laser guidance to target tanks, bunkers, and structures.4545 Hellfire
missiles have a maximum effective range of 4.3 nautical miles. By the mid-1980s, the Marine
Corps had introduced Hellfire missiles to its attack helicopter fleet. Hellfire missiles have
received continual upgrades over the past decades, including integrating infrared sensors,
warheads to target small boats, and integration with the Apache'’s Longbow radar.4646 During the
late 1990s and early 2000s, Hellfire missiles were introduced to the MQ-1 Predator, and later to
the MQ-9 Reaper, enabling unmanned aerial vehicles to provide a strike capability.47
47
Hellfire missiles have become a preferred munition for operations in the Middle East, particularly
with increased utilization of unmanned aircraft like MQ-1s and MQ-9s. Hellfire missiles have
been exported to a number of countries, including Australia, Bahrain, Egypt, India, Iraq, South
Korea, Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Taiwan, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, and the United
Kingdom.48
48
The Army and the Marine Corps identified the need to replace the Hellfire missile. During the
mid-2000s, the two services started a new development project called the Joint Air-to-Ground
Missile (JAGM), which entered testing in 2012. Both services plan to replace the Hellfire with
the JAGM; however, it is unclear when they plan to make the transition.
![]() |
|
All three military departments procure Hellfire missiles. From 1998 through 2018, DOD procured
more than 71,500 missiles at a cost of $7.2 billion.4949 Congress appropriated nearly $484 million
for approximately 6,000 missiles in FY2019. For FY2020, DOD requested approximately $730
million for 9,000 Hellfire missiles, and it plans to purchase 13,100 missiles at a cost of $1.2
billion between FY2021 and FY2024 (Table 3).50).50 In its FY2020 recent budget request, DOD
states that it is requesting to procure the maximum production of Hellfire missiles.51
51
Table 3. AGM-114 Hellfire Missile Requested and Programmed Procurement in
the FYDP
Cost
($millions)
Quantity
FY2020
FY2021a
FY2022b
FY2023b
FY2024b
FY2025b
Total
$726.71
$516.61
$196.74
$233.44
$188.21
$41.82
$1,903.52
8,790
8,150
1,795
2,064
1,479
113
22,391
Source: U.S. Army FY2021 Missiles Procurement Line Item 1338C70000 Hellfire Sys Summary; U.S. Air Force
FY2021 Missile Procurement Line Item PRDTA2 Predator Hellfire Missile; and U.S. Navy FY2021 Weapons
Procurement Line Item 2254 Hellfire.
49
See Department of Defense Budget FY2000-2020 P-1 Procurement budget requests, at
https://comptroller.defense.gov/Budget-Materials/.
50 U.S. Army FY2020 Missiles Procurement Line Item 1338C70000 Hellfire Sys Summary, at https://apps.dtic.mil/
procurement/Y2020/Army/stamped/U_P40_1338C70000_BSA-20_BA-2_APP-2032A_PB_2020.pdf, U.S. Air Force
FY2020 Missile Procurement Line Item PRDTA2 Predator Hellfire Missile, at https://apps.dtic.mil/procurement/
Y2020/AirForce/stamped/U_P40_PRDTA2_BSA-2_BA-2_APP-3020F_PB_2020.pdf, and U.S. Navy FY2020
Weapons Procurement Line Item 2254 Hellfire, at https://apps.dtic.mil/procurement/Y2020/Navy/stamped/
U_P40_2254_BSA-2_BA-2_APP-1507N_PB_2020.pdf.
51 Department of Defense, “FY2020 Program Acquisition Costs by Weapons System,” at
https://comptroller.defense.gov/Portals/45/Documents/defbudget/fy2020/fy2020_Weapons.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
14
Precision-Guided Munitions: Background and Issues for Congress
a.
b.
Denotes the Administration’s request.
Denotes programmed funding and quantities.
Table 3. AGM-114 Hellfire Missile Requested and Programmed Procurement in the FYDP
FY2020 |
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
Cost ($millions) |
$726.71 |
$516.61 |
$196.74 |
$233.44 |
$188.21 |
$41.82 |
$1,903.52 |
Quantity |
8,790 |
8,150 |
1,795 |
2,064 |
1,479 |
113 |
22,391 |
Source: U.S. Army FY2021 Missiles Procurement Line Item 1338C70000 Hellfire Sys Summary; U.S. Air Force FY2021 Missile Procurement Line Item PRDTA2 Predator Hellfire Missile; and U.S. Navy FY2021 Weapons Procurement Line Item 2254 Hellfire.
a. Denotes the Administration's request.
b. Denotes programmed funding and quantities.
AGM-169 Joint Air-to-Ground Missile (JAGM)
The Joint Air-to-Ground Missile is designed to replace the Hellfire, TOW, and Maverick missiles.
JAGM uses a new warhead/seeker paired with an existing AGM-114R rocket motor—which is
the latest model—to provide improved target acquisition and discrimination (see Figure 12).52 ).52
The JAGM has a maximum effective range of 8.6 nautical miles when launched from a helicopter
and 15.1 nautical miles when launched from fixed-wing aircraft.
JAGM underwent testing starting in 2010, and the missile entered initial operating capability in
2019, having been successfully integrated on the AH-64E Apache and AH-1Z Super Cobra attack
helicopters. JAGM is expected to be integrated on other platforms as well, including the FA-18EFA18E/F Super Hornet, MQ-1C Grey Eagle, MH-60M Defensive Air Penetrator, MH-60S Seahawk,
F-35 Lightning II, and P-8 Poseidon.5353 In addition, the Air Force has begun procuring JAGMs but
has not announced publicly what platforms will employ the missile.
Figure 12. Diagram of an AGM-169 JAGM |
![]() |
Source: https://janes.ihs.com/Janes/Display/jalw9220-jalw
|
Lockheed
Martin).
JAGM entered low-rate initial production in FY2017.5454 All three services are procuring JAGM,
though the Air Force is requesting only 60 missiles in FY2020, with no projections of additional
procurement.5555 DOD requested more than $339 million and 1,000 missiles for FY2020, and it
projects procuring approximately 4,600 additional missiles through FY2024 for about $1.5 billion
(see Table 4).
FY2020 |
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
|
$285.02 |
$262.78 |
$215.87 |
$289.57 |
$286.32 |
$285.40 |
$1,624.96 |
Quantity |
854 |
860 |
467 |
914 |
838 |
838 |
4,771 |
Source: Table 4).
IHS Janes “Joint Air-to-Ground Missile (JAGM),” April 11, 2019, at https://janes.ihs.com/Janes/Display/jalw9220jalw.
53 IHS Janes “Joint Air-to-Ground Missile (JAGM),” April 11, 2019, at https://janes.ihs.com/Janes/Display/jalw9220jalw.
54 IHS Janes “Joint Air-to-Ground Missile (JAGM),” April 11, 2019, at https://janes.ihs.com/Janes/Display/jalw9220jalw.
55 U.S. Air Force FY2020 Missile Procurement Line Item JAGM00 Joint Air-to-Ground Munition, at
https://apps.dtic.mil/procurement/Y2020/AirForce/stamped/U_P40_JAGM00_BSA-2_BA-2_APP3020F_PB_2020.pdf.
52
Congressional Research Service
15
Precision-Guided Munitions: Background and Issues for Congress
Table 4. AGM-169 JAGM Requested and Programmed Procurement in the FYDP
Cost
($millions)
Quantity
FY2020
FY2021a
FY2022b
FY2023b
FY2024b
FY2025b
Total
$285.02
$262.78
$215.87
$289.57
$286.32
$285.40
$1,624.96
854
860
467
914
838
838
4,771
Source: U.S. Army FY2021 Missiles Procurement Line Item 2605C70302 Joint Air-to-Ground MSLS (JAGM);
U.S. Army FY2021 Missiles Procurement Line Item 2605C70302 Joint Air-to-Ground MSLS (JAGM); U.S. Air Force FY2021 Missile Procurement Line Item JAGM00 Joint Air-to-Ground Munition;; and U.S. Navy
FY2021 Weapons Procurement Line Item 2248 Joint Air Ground Missile (JAGM).
a. Denotes the Administration'’s request.
b. Denotes programmed funding and quantities.
The Joint Air-to-Surface Strike Missile was conceived in the mid-1990s as a stealthy cruise
missile designed to strike targets in heavily defended airspace.5656 The JASSM is a 14-foot-long,
2,250-pound missile that can be carried internally on B-1B Lancer and B-52 Stratofortress aircraft
and carried externally on a number of tactical fighters, including the F-16 Falcon, F-15E Strike
Eagle, F/A-18 Hornet, F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, and F-35 Lightning II (see Figure 13).57).57 The
AGM-158A JASSM has a stated range of more than 200 nautical miles.5858 Initial operating
capability was declared in 2005 (see Figure 14). AGM-158As have been exported to Australia,
Finland, and Poland.59
59
In 2004, the Air Force decided that it required additional range on the JASSM and developed an
extended range version, the AGM-158B JASSM-ER.6060 The JASSM-ER uses the same body as the
previous version with an improved infrared seeker, a two-way datalink, and enhanced anti-jam
GPS receiver.6161 The range of the JASSM-ER increased from more than 200 nautical miles to 500
nautical miles.6262 This munition reached initial operating capability in 2014 on the B-1B Lancer. It
reached full operating capability in 2018 with integration onto the F-15E Strike Eagle, and it is in
full-rate production.6363 The Air Force originally planned to procure 2,866 JASSMs and JASSM-ERsJASSMERs, but it has since changed the requirement to 7,200 missiles;64as64as of 2019 the Air Force has procured more than 4,000 JASSMs. Japan has expressed interest in procuring JASSM-ERs, and
U.S. Air Force, “JASSM - The Air Force’s Next Generation Cruise Missile,” press release, March 6, 2008,
https://www.afmc.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/155587/jassm-the-air-forces-next-generation-cruise-missile/.
57 IHS Janes “AGM-158A JASSM and AGM-158B JASSM-ER,” July 23, 2019, at https://janes.ihs.com/Janes/Display/
jalw3784-jalw.
58 U.S. Air Force, “JASSM - The Air Force’s Next Generation Cruise Missile,” press release, March 6, 2008,
https://www.afmc.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/155587/jassm-the-air-forces-next-generation-cruise-missile/.
59 IHS Janes “AGM-158A JASSM and AGM-158B JASSM-ER,” July 23, 2019, at https://janes.ihs.com/Janes/Display/
jalw3784-jalw.
60 IHS Janes “AGM-158A JASSM and AGM-158B JASSM-ER,” July 23, 2019, at https://janes.ihs.com/Janes/Display/
jalw3784-jalw.
61 IHS Janes “AGM-158A JASSM and AGM-158B JASSM-ER,” July 23, 2019, at https://janes.ihs.com/Janes/Display/
jalw3784-jalw.
62 U.S. Air Force, “JASSM - The Air Force’s Next Generation Cruise Missile,” press release, March 6, 2008,
https://www.afmc.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/155587/jassm-the-air-forces-next-generation-cruise-missile/.
63 IHS Janes “AGM-158A JASSM and AGM-158B JASSM-ER,” July 23, 2019, at https://janes.ihs.com/Janes/Display/
jalw3784-jalw.
64 Department of Defense, “Comprehensive Selected Acquisition Reports for the Annual 2018 Reporting Requirements
56
Congressional Research Service
16
Precision-Guided Munitions: Background and Issues for Congress
procured more than 4,000 JASSMs. Japan has expressed interest in procuring JASSM-ERs, and
Poland was approved to receive 70 missiles in 2016.65Poland was approved to receive 70 missiles in 2016.65 The Air Force announced plans in
September 2019 to increase JASSM production to a maximum rate of 550 missiles per year.6666 The
Service intends to grow the total JASSM inventory to approximately 10,000 missiles. In February
2020, the Air Force announced an $818 million contract to produce the latest version of the
JASSM-Extreme Range Missile. According to Inside Defense, this new contract will produce 790
JASSM-ER missiles over two production lots.6767 The new production contract includes 40 JASSM
missiles to support foreign military sales; however, it is unclear which country will receive these
missiles.
The Long Range Anti-Ship Missile (LRASM) was conceived by the Defense Advanced Research
Projects Agency (DARPA) as a concept to use a JASSM body to replace the AGM-88 Harpoon.68 68
Flight testing for LRASM began in 2012 on board a B-1B, and the missile was tested on an F/A-18EA18E/F Super Hornet. LRASM uses a combination of passive radio-frequency sensors, and electro-opticalelectrooptical/infrared seekers for terminal guidance.6969 Japan has expressed interest in procuring the
LRASM. In September 2019, the Air Force announced its intent to procure up to 410 LRASM
missiles, changing its plan from an original estimate of 110 missiles.70
![]() |
Source: https://janes.ihs.com/Janes/Display/jalw3784-jalw
|
).
Congressional Research Service
18
Precision-Guided Munitions: Background and Issues for Congress
The JASSM-ER and the LRASM are produced in the same facility.7171 According to budget
documents, DOD states that JASSM and LRASM procurement in FY2020 is at maximum
production rate. The Air Force and Navy are procuring JASSM-ER and LRASM as of 2019. In
FY2020, DOD requested to procure 430 JASSM-ER missiles and an additional 48 LRASMs (see
Table 5). In September 2019, the Air Force announced plans to increased JASSM production to
500 missiles per year, with additional capacity to up produce 96 LRASMs.7272 DOD projects
reduced procurement quantities of JASSM-ER, while maintaining procurement quantities of
LRASM through FY2024.
Table 5. JASSM and LRASM Requested and Programmed Procurement in the FYDP
JASSM Cost
($millions)
JASSM
Quantity
LRASM Cost
($millions)
LRASM
Quantity
FY2020
FY2021a
FY2022b
FY2023b
FY2024b
FY2025b
Total
$483.43
$505.95
$750.65
$758.29
$758.40
$761.89
$4,018.60
390
400
512
516
520
509
2,847
$72.54
$188.65
$164.85
$329.50
$343.45
$161.37
$1,260.35
17
53
48
92
100
46
356
Source: U.S. Air Force FY2021 Missile Procurement Line Item JASM0 Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile; U.S.
Air Force FY2021 Missile Procurement Line Item LRASM0 LRASM0; and U.S. Navy FY2021 Weapons
Table 5. JASSM and LRASM Requested and Programmed Procurement in the FYDP
FY2020 |
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
JASSM Cost ($millions) |
$483.43 |
$505.95 |
$750.65 |
$758.29 |
$758.40 |
$761.89 |
$4,018.60 |
JASSM Quantity |
390 |
400 |
512 |
516 |
520 |
509 |
2,847 |
LRASM Cost ($millions) |
$72.54 |
$188.65 |
$164.85 |
$329.50 |
$343.45 |
$161.37 |
$1,260.35 |
LRASM Quantity |
17 |
53 |
48 |
92 |
100 |
46 |
356 |
Source: U.S. Air Force FY2021 Missile Procurement Line Item JASM0 Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile; U.S. Air Force FY2021 Missile Procurement Line Item LRASM0 LRASM0; and U.S. Navy FY2021 Weapons Procurement Line Item 2291 LRASM.
a. Procurement Line Item 2291 LRASM.
a. Denotes the Administration'’s request.
b. Denotes programmed funding and quantities.
The Advanced Anti-Radiation Guided Missile is designed to target enemy integrated air defenses,
specifically guidance radars (see Figure 15). AARGM was conceived in 2001 to replace the
High-Speed Anti-Radiation Missile (HARM). DOD identified several deficiencies in the HARM
that limited its operational effectiveness during Operation Iraqi Freedom.7373 Thus, AARGM
incorporated a new solid-propellant rocket motor that improved its range over the HARM, along
with new guidance and seeker systems—using GPS inertial navigation for guidance and
millimeter wave and W-band (higher than 40 GHz) sensors.74
74
AARGM entered operational testing in 2010 and initial operational capability in 2012. AARGM
has been integrated on the F/A-18C/D Hornet, F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, E/A-18G Growler, F-16CF16C/D Falcon, and the F-35 Lightning II.
|
![]() |
.
Both the Navy and the Air Force have procured the AARGM or its predecessor the HARM;
however, neither service is procuring additional missiles as of FY2020.7575 The Navy, however, has
requested $183 million of procurement appropriations to modify its current stockpile of
AARGMs. The Air Force has not requested appropriations to modify its stockpile of HARMs
since FY2016.76 76 Table 6 describes the total DOD request for AARGM. AARGM has been
exported to a number of countries, including Australia, Italy, Finland, Germany, and Poland.77
77
Table 6. ARRGM Requested and Programmed Procurement in the FYDP
Cost
($millions)
AARGM
Quantity
FY2020
FY2021a
FY2022b
FY2023b
FY2024b
FY2025b
Total
$183.74
$147.57
$128.22
$198.92
$237.40
$270.72
$1,166.56
—
24
32
70
109
140
375
Source: Table 6. ARRGM Requested and Programmed Procurement in the FYDP
FY2020 |
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
|
$183.74 |
$147.57 |
$128.22 |
$198.92 |
$237.40 |
$270.72 |
$1,166.56 |
AARGM Quantity |
— |
24 |
32 |
70 |
109 |
140 |
375 |
Source: U.S. Navy FY2021 Weapons Procurement Line Item 2327 HARM Mods.
a. U.S. Navy FY2021 Weapons Procurement Line Item 2327 HARM Mods.
a. Denotes the Administration'’s request.
b. Denotes programmed funding and quantities.
GMLRS (see Figure 16) is a GPS-guided 227-millimeter rocket that was jointly developed by the
United States, France, Germany, Italy, and the United Kingdom.7878 Development began in 1999,
and the U.S. military began procuring GMLRS in FY2003. GMLRS is capable of being launched
from the M270 multiple launch rocket system (MLRS) and the M142 High Mobility Artillery
Rocket System (HIMARS). GMLRS has a 200-pound unitary warhead and a maximum range of
70 kilometers.79
79
Both the Army and the Marine Corps have procured GMLRS. Since 1998, DOD has spent nearly
$5.4 billion to procure more than 42,000 rockets.8080 DOD has requested more than $1.2 billion for
approximately 9,900 rockets in FY2020, and it plans to spend an additional $4.3 billion for nearly
29,000 GMLRS between FY2021 and FY2024. In addition, GMLRS is being exported: Bahrain,
United Arab Emirates, Poland, and Romania are procuring GMLRS, as are the development
partners (France, Germany, Italy, and the United Kingdom).8181 See Table 7 for an overview of the
current DOD request for GMLRS.
Figure 16. GMLRS Launching
current DOD request for GMLRS.
![]() |
Source: https://www.lockheedmartin.com/en-us/products/ |
FY2020 |
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
|
$1,221.17 |
$1,128.32 |
$869.60 |
$1,092.94 |
$1,100.36 |
$1,082.83 |
$6,495.21 |
Quantity |
8,523 |
7,360 |
5,876 |
7,267 |
6,957 |
6,592 |
42,575 |
Source: U.S. Army FY2021 Missile Procurement Line Item 6005C64400 Guided MLRS Rocket (GMLRS) and guided-mlrs-unitary-rocket.html.
IHS Janes “227 mm MLRS/GMLRS rockets,” April 3, 2019, at https://janes.ihs.com/Janes/Display/jah_1074-jah_.
IHS Janes “227 mm MLRS/GMLRS rockets,” April 3, 2019, at https://janes.ihs.com/Janes/Display/jah_1074-jah_.
80 See Department of Defense Budget FY2000-2020 P-1 Procurement budget requests, at
https://comptroller.defense.gov/Budget-Materials/.
81 IHS Janes “227 mm MLRS/GMLRS rockets,” April 3, 2019, at https://janes.ihs.com/Janes/Display/jah_1074-jah_.
78
79
Congressional Research Service
21
Precision-Guided Munitions: Background and Issues for Congress
Table 7. GMLRS Requested and Programmed Procurement in the FYDP
Cost
($millions)
Quantity
FY2020
FY2021a
FY2022b
FY2023b
FY2024b
FY2025b
Total
$1,221.17
$1,128.32
$869.60
$1,092.94
$1,100.36
$1,082.83
$6,495.21
8,523
7,360
5,876
7,267
6,957
6,592
42,575
Source: U.S. Army FY2021 Missile Procurement Line Item 6005C64400 Guided MLRS Rocket (GMLRS) and
U.S. Navy FY2021 Procurement, Marine Corps Line Item 3025 Guided MLRS Rocket (GMLRS).
a. U.S. Navy FY2021 Procurement, Marine Corps Line Item 3025 Guided MLRS Rocket (GMLRS).
a. Denotes the Administration'’s request.
b. Denotes programmed funding and quantities.
ATACMS (see Figure 17) is a 610-millimeter rocket that can be launched from either the M270
MLRS (two rockets) or the M142 HIMARS (a single rocket). This rocket was originally
developed in the 1980s and was later updated to provide GPS guidance.8282 ATAMCS underwent a
second upgrade in 1991, which allowed ATACMS warheads to seek and attack armored targets.83 83
Other upgrades have improved target discrimination and new penetrating warheads for hardened
targets. In 2016, then-Secretary of Defense Ash Carter announced that the Strategic Capabilities
Office had developed a new seeker that allowed the ATACMS rocket to target ships.8484 The Army
has stated that it intends to retire the ATACMS and replace it with the new Precision Strike
Missile.
Missile.
Figure 17. ATACMS Long-Range Precision Tactical Missile System |
![]() |
.
IHS Janes “610 mm Army Tactical Missile System rockets,” June 28, 2019, at https://janes.ihs.com/Janes/Display/
jah_1090-jah_.
83 IHS Janes “610 mm Army Tactical Missile System rockets,” June 28, 2019, at https://janes.ihs.com/Janes/Display/
jah_1090-jah_.
84 Sydney J. Freedberg Jr., “Carter, Roper Unveil Army’s New Ship-Killer Missile: ATACMS Upgrade,” Breaking
Defense, October 28, 2016, at https://breakingdefense.com/2016/10/army-atacms-missile-will-kill-ships-secdef-carter/.
82
Congressional Research Service
22
Precision-Guided Munitions: Background and Issues for Congress
The Army is procuring ATACMS in FY2020, though this procurement will curtail as the
Precision Strike Missile enters service. DOD requested to procure 240 missiles for $340 million
in FY2020;8585 it plans to procure 492 missiles for $611 million between FY2021 and FY2024.
Table 8 provides an overview of the most recent request for ATACMS. Five hundred and six
ATACMS have been exported to a number of countries, including the United Arab Emirates and
Romania.86
Romania.86
FY2020 |
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
|
$300.78 |
$- |
$- |
$- |
$- |
$- |
$300.78 |
Quantity |
232 |
— |
— |
— |
— |
— |
232 |
Table 8. ATACMS Requested and Programmed Procurement in the FYDP
Cost
($millions)
Quantity
FY2020
FY2021a
FY2022b
FY2023b
FY2024b
FY2025b
Total
$300.78
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$300.78
232
—
—
—
—
—
232
Source: U.S. Army FY2021 Missile Procurement Line Item 6472C98510 ARMY TACTICAL MSL SYS
(ATACMS) – SYS SUS.
.
a. Denotes the Administration'’s request.
b. Denotes programmed funding and quantities.
The PrSM is a new development program intended to replace ATACMS. PrSM is designed to be
launched from the M270 and the M142 HIMARS multiple rocket launcher system. The Army
states that PrSM is designed to launch two missiles in a launcher pod compared to ATACMS
single missile, has a range in excess of 400 kilometers, and has an anti-jam GPS antenna.8787 PrSM
is in development and is planned to enter early operational service in FY2023. The Army has not
stated when it intends to begin testing the PrSM. The Army states that although this missile might
be sold to foreign militaries in the future, there are no purchase commitments from foreign
governments as of 2019. The Army tested the PrSM at White Sands, NM, in its first flight test in
December 2019.8888 In its second test in March 2019, the Army successfully tested the PrSMs
short-range capabilities.
U.S. Army Missile Procurement Line Item 6472C98510 ARMY TACTICAL MSL SYS (ATACMS) – SYS SUS, at
https://apps.dtic.mil/procurement/Y2020/Army/stamped/U_P40_6472C98510_BSA-30_BA-2_APP2032A_PB_2020.pdf
86 IHS Janes “610 mm Army Tactical Missile System rockets,” June 28, 2019, at https://janes.ihs.com/Janes/Display/
jah_1090-jah_.
87 U.S. Army Acquisition Support Center “Precision Strike Missile Fact Sheet,” at https://asc.army.mil/web/portfolioitem/ms-prsm/.
88 Sydney Freedberg Jr., “PRSM: Lockheed Long-Range Missile Passes Short-Range Stress Test,” Breaking Defense,
March 19, 2020, https://breakingdefense.com/2020/03/lockheed-long-range-missile-passes-short-range-stress-test/.
85
Congressional Research Service
23
Precision-Guided Munitions: Background and Issues for Congress
Figure 18. Notional Design of PrSM
short-range capabilities.
|
![]() |
FY2020 |
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
|
$49.94 |
$168.42 |
$210.06 |
$335.09 |
$309.91 |
$49.94 |
$1,073.41 |
Quantity |
— |
30 |
110 |
178 |
350 |
350 |
1,018 |
us-army-s-precision-strike-missile-moves-ahead-as-us-russia-inftreaty-falters.
Table 9. PrSM Requested and Programmed Procurement
Cost
($millions)
Quantity
FY2020
FY2021a
FY2022b
FY2023b
FY2024b
FY2025b
Total
$49.94
$168.42
$210.06
$335.09
$309.91
$49.94
$1,073.41
—
30
110
178
350
350
1,018
Source: U.S. Army FY2021 Missile Procurement Line Item 8540C29600 PRECISION STRIKE MISSILE (PRSM).
.
a. Denotes the Administration'’s request.
b. Denotes programmed funding and quantities.
The Tomahawk cruise missile was originally developed during the early- to mid-1970s. It was
designed to be launched by submarines and from surface combatants. Designed to fly at 570
miles per hour (Mach 0.74, or 74% of the speed of sound) for up to 870 nautical miles,8989 the
Tomahawk has received a number of upgrades since it entered service. The Tomahawk Block IV
is the current cruise missile in production and comes in two versions—one for surface ships and
another for submarines (see Figure 19). Upgrades have included improvements to GPS guidance,
satellite datalink communications, and propulsion.9090 The first operational use of the Tomahawk
IHS Janes “Tomahawk/RGM/UGM-109A/B/C/D/E,” September 2, 2019, at https://janes.ihs.com/Janes/Display/
jnws0162-jnw_.
90 IHS Janes “Tomahawk/RGM/UGM-109A/B/C/D/E,” September 2, 2019, at https://janes.ihs.com/Janes/Display/
89
Congressional Research Service
24
Precision-Guided Munitions: Background and Issues for Congress
was during Operation Desert Storm, where the Navy launched 290 missiles from 12 submarines.
Since then, IHS Janes reports that the Navy has used more than 1,600 missiles in Iraq, Bosnia,
Serbia, Afghanistan, and Syria.9191 The United Kingdom is the only export customer of the
Tomahawk Block IV.
Figure 19. Tomahawk Block IV Cruise Missile |
![]() |
Source: https://www.navy.mil/management/photodb/photos/021110-N-0000X-003.jpg
|
From FY1998 through FY2018, the Navy spent $5.87 billion on 4,984 Tomahawk cruise
missiles.9292 The Navy has requested nearly $387 million for 90 missiles in FY2020, and it projects
to procure an additional 90 missiles for nearly $374 million in FY2021, with no plans to procure
additional missiles in FY2022-FY2024.9393 The Navy projects requesting $819 million for
additional procurement appropriations.9494 (See Table 10 for the most recent Tomahawk request.)
FY2020 |
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
|
$386.16 |
$277.69 |
$5.03 |
$5.02 |
$5.06 |
$5.36 |
$684.33 |
Quantity |
90 |
155 |
— |
— |
— |
— |
245 |
Source: for the most recent Tomahawk request.)
jnws0162-jnw_.
91 IHS Janes “Tomahawk/RGM/UGM-109A/B/C/D/E,” September 2, 2019, at https://janes.ihs.com/Janes/Display/
jnws0162-jnw_.
92 See Department of Defense Budget FY2000-2020 P-1 Procurement budget requests, at
https://comptroller.defense.gov/Budget-Materials/.
93 U.S. Navy FY2020 Weapons Procurement Line Item 2101 Tomahawk, at https://apps.dtic.mil/procurement/Y2020/
Navy/stamped/U_P40_2101_BSA-1_BA-2_APP-1507N_PB_2020.pdf.
94 U.S. Navy FY2020 Weapons Procurement Line Item 2101 Tomahawk, at https://apps.dtic.mil/procurement/Y2020/
Navy/stamped/U_P40_2101_BSA-1_BA-2_APP-1507N_PB_2020.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
25
Precision-Guided Munitions: Background and Issues for Congress
Table 10. Tomahawk Missile Requested and Programmed Procurement in the FYDP
Cost
($millions)
Quantity
FY2020
FY2021a
FY2022b
FY2023b
FY2024b
FY2025b
Total
$386.16
$277.69
$5.03
$5.02
$5.06
$5.36
$684.33
90
155
—
—
—
—
245
Source: U.S. Navy FY2021 Weapons Procurement Line Item 2101 Tomahawk.
a. U.S. Navy FY2021 Weapons Procurement Line Item 2101 Tomahawk.
a. Denotes the Administration'’s request.
b. Denotes programmed funding and quantities.
The Standard Missile-6 was originally designed in 2004 as an anti-aircraft missile, derived from
the Navy'’s SM-2 Block IV (see Figure 20).95).95 Since its development, the SM-6 has been
integrated into the Navy'’s Naval Integrated Fires-Counter Air (NIF-CA) program to strike enemy
surface ships. The missile was designed to receive targeting information from AEGIS radars and
has been upgraded to receive target information from the E-2D Advanced Hawkeye. In addition
to anti-air and anti-surface missions, the SM-6 is also capable of performing anti-ballistic missile
missions.9696 SM-6 entered low-rate initial production in FY2009 and full rate production in
FY2013.97
97
The SM-6 is funded under the Navy'’s procurement line item 2234 Standard Missile.9898 According
to the latest Selected Acquisition Reports, DOD increased the requirement for SM-6 missiles
from 1,800 to 2,331.9999 DOD requested $488 million for 125 missiles in FY2020; it is projected
that DOD will procure an additional 615 missiles between FY2021 and FY2024 at a cost of
nearly $2.9 billion.100 100 Table 11 provides an overview of the current DOD request for SM-6
missiles.
missiles.
FY2020 |
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
Cost ($millions) |
$488.31 |
$539.83 |
$625.14 |
$600.76 |
$905.19 |
$840.14 |
$3,999.37 |
Quantity |
125 |
125 |
132 |
135 |
200 |
183 |
900 |
Table 11. SM-6 Requested and Programmed Procurement in the FYDP Cost ($millions) Quantity FY2020 FY2021a FY2022b FY2023b FY2024b FY2025b Total $488.31 $539.83 $625.14 $600.76 $905.19 $840.14 $3,999.37 125 125 132 135 200 183 900 Source: U.S. Navy FY2021 Weapons Procurement Line Item 2234 Standard Missile.
a. Denotes the Administration's request.
b. Denotes programmed funding and quantities.
|
![]() |
The Naval Strike Missile was originally developed by the Norwegian company Kongsberg as a
replacement for the Penguin anti-ship missile (see Figure 21 and Figure 22).101).101 This missile is an
anti-ship, low-observable cruise missile capable of flying close the surface of the ocean to avoid
radar detection. IHS Janes states that "“[t]he NSM NSM airframe materials and missile missile shape are
intended to minimise its infrared (IR) and radar signatures and radar cross section."102”102 The NSM
is designed to fly multiple flight profiles—different altitudes and speeds—with effective ranges
of between 100 and 300 nautical miles at a cruise speed of up to 0.9 Mach. The Navy has
integrated the NSM on its Littoral Combat Ship, which deployed into the Pacific region in
September 2019.103
103
The Navy began procuring the NSM in FY2019 under the Littoral Combat Ship Over-the-HorizontheHorizon Missile procurement line (see Table 12). The Navy has requested $38 million for 18
missiles, and it plans to spend approximately $166 million for an additional 83 missile through
IHS Janes “Naval Strike Missile (NSM),” May, 21, 2019, at https://janes.ihs.com/Janes/Display/jnws0911-jnw_.
IHS Janes “Naval Strike Missile (NSM),” May, 21, 2019, at https://janes.ihs.com/Janes/Display/jnws0911-jnw_.
103 David B. Larter, “US Navy deploys new ship-killer missile to China’s backyard,” Defense News, September 5,
2019, at https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2019/09/06/the-us-navy-just-deployed-its-new-ship-killer-missile-tochinas-backyard/.
101
102
Congressional Research Service
27
Precision-Guided Munitions: Background and Issues for Congress
FY2024. According to its budget justification, the Navy does not have a specific requirement for
the number of missiles it plans to procure.104
104 Figure 21. Naval Strike Missile in Flight |
![]() |
Figure 22. Illustration of Naval Strike Missile with Attributes |
![]() |
FY2020 |
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
Cost ($millions) |
$38.14 |
$32.91 |
$60.12 |
$74.30 |
$80.77 |
$79.78 |
$366.01 |
Quantity |
18 |
15 |
34 |
44 |
48 |
48 |
207 |
Source: U.S. Navy FY2021 Weapons Procurement Line Item 2292 LCS OTH Missile.
a. U.S. Navy FY2021 Weapons Procurement Line Item 2292 LCS OTH Missile.
a. Denotes the Administration'’s request.
b. Denotes programmed funding and quantities.
Appendix A.
111
108
Gary Roughead, Eric Edelman, et al., Providing for the Common Defense, National Defense Strategy Commission,
The Assessment and Recommendations of the National Defense Strategy Commission, 2018, https://www.usip.org/
sites/default/files/2018-11/providing-for-the-common-defense.pdf.
109 Chris Baraniuk, “Small drone ‘shot with Patriot missile,’” BBC, March 15, 2017, at https://www.bbc.com/news/
technology-39277940.
110 For more information on the INF treaty and its implications for U.S. policy, see CRS Report R43832, Russian
Compliance with the Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty: Background and Issues for Congress, by Amy
F. Woolf.
111 For more information on each of these technologies, see CRS Report R45811, Hypersonic Weapons: Background
and Issues for Congress, by Kelley M. Sayler, and CRS Report R45178, Artificial Intelligence and National Security,
by Kelley M. Sayler.
Congressional Research Service
30
Appendix A. Prior Year Procurement by Service
Prior Year Procurement by Service
Service |
FY1998 |
FY1999 |
FY2000 |
FY2001 |
FY2002 |
FY2003 |
FY2004 |
FY2005 |
FY2006 |
FY2007 |
FY2008 |
FY2009 |
|
Army |
Nominal Cost ($m) |
$330.40 |
$398.90 |
$384.70 |
$377.80 |
$273.30 |
$449.20 |
$189.30 |
$377.80 |
$304.70 |
$201.30 |
$601.08 |
$562.33 |
Constant Cost ($m FY2020) |
$489.34 |
$582.93 |
$554.16 |
$535.58 |
$380.80 |
$612.57 |
$251.80 |
$490.33 |
$386.28 |
$250.22 |
$735.72 |
$678.65 |
|
Quantity |
1,209 |
2,096 |
2,310 |
2,300 |
2,224 |
978 |
846 |
1,110 |
1,082 |
943 |
5,004 |
5,597 |
|
Air Force |
Nominal Cost ($m) |
$48.60 |
$79.50 |
$189.20 |
$203.70 |
$343.70 |
$543.70 |
$540.00 |
$717.00 |
$413.40 |
$609.40 |
$438.81 |
$551.44 |
Constant Cost ($m FY2020) |
$71.98 |
$116.18 |
$272.54 |
$288.77 |
$478.89 |
$741.44 |
$718.28 |
$930.56 |
$524.09 |
$757.49 |
$537.09 |
$665.51 |
|
Quantity |
1,655 |
3,778 |
8,436 |
8,904 |
14,468 |
23,577 |
20,584 |
23,633 |
9,248 |
11,301 |
6,588 |
10,048 |
|
Navy |
Nominal Cost ($m) |
$71.20 |
$538.60 |
$148.20 |
$182.10 |
$405.40 |
$798.80 |
$674.20 |
$491.10 |
$547.70 |
$600.70 |
$606.56 |
$447.86 |
Constant Cost ($m FY2020) |
$105.45 |
$787.08 |
$213.48 |
$258.15 |
$564.86 |
$1,089.32 |
$896.78 |
$637.38 |
$694.35 |
$746.67 |
$742.42 |
$540.50 |
|
Quantity |
547 |
1,475 |
2,153 |
2,625 |
14,608 |
12,750 |
12,893 |
7,928 |
4,830 |
4,790 |
2,899 |
1,752 |
Source: Department of Defense Budget FY2000-2020Table A-1. PGM Procurement Cost and Quantities, by Service (FY1998-FY2009)
Service
Army
Air Force
Navy
FY1998
FY1999
FY2000
FY2001
FY2002
FY2003
FY2004
FY2005
FY2006
FY2007
FY2008
FY2009
Nominal Cost ($m)
Constant Cost
($m FY2021)
$330.40
$398.90
$384.70
$377.80
$273.30
$449.20
$189.30
$377.80
$304.70
$201.30
$601.08
$562.33
$499.09
$594.22
$564.66
$546.27
$388.54
$625.28
$256.99
$499.74
$393.67
$255.00
$749.66
$691.42
Quantity
1,209
2,096
2,310
2,300
2,224
978
846
1,110
1,082
943
5,004
5,597
Nominal Cost ($m)
Constant Cost
($m FY2021)
$48.60
$79.50
$189.20
$203.70
$343.70
$543.70
$540.00
$717.00
$413.40
$609.40
$438.81
$551.44
$73.41
$118.43
$277.70
$294.53
$488.63
$756.82
$733.10
$948.41
$534.11
$771.98
$547.28
$678.03
Quantity
1,655
3,778
8,436
8,904
14,468
23,577
20,584
23,633
9,248
11,301
6,588
10,048
Nominal Cost ($m)
Constant Cost
($m FY2021)
$71.20
$538.60
$148.20
$182.10
$405.40
$798.80
$674.20
$491.10
$547.70
$600.70
$606.56
$447.86
$107.55
$802.32
$217.53
$263.30
$576.34
$1,111.92
$915.29
$649.60
$707.62
$760.96
$756.49
$550.66
Quantity
547
1,475
2,153
2,625
14,608
12,750
12,893
7,928
4,830
4,790
2,899
1,752
Source: Department of Defense Budget FY2000-2021 P-1 Procurement budget requests, at https://comptroller.defense.gov/Budget-Materials/, Department of Defense
National Defense Budget Estimate for FY2020 pp. 58-59FY2021 pp. 60-61, at https://comptroller.defense.gov/Portals/45/Documents/defbudget/fy2020/FY20_Green_Bookfy2021/FY21_Green_Book.pdf, Air Force FY2020
FY2021 Missile procurement budget justifications; Army FY2020FY2021 Missile procurement budget justifications; Navy FY2020FY2021 Weapons procurement budget justifications.
CRS-31
Table A-2. PGM Procurement Cost and Quantities, by Service (FY2010-FY2021)
Service
Army
Nominal Cost ($m)
Air Force
Navy
FY2010
FY2011
FY2012
FY2013
FY2014
FY2015
FY2016
FY2017
$580.41
$486.71
$442.13
$240.23
$382.52
$163.73
$365.12
$968.50
FY2018
FY2019
FY2020
$1,639.33
$1,425.64
$2,102.03
FY2021*
$1,568.00
Constant Cost
($m FY2021)
$702.68
$579.62
$518.57
$277.86
$436.16
$183.89
$402.96
$1,048.28
$1,739.35
$1,483.19
$2,144.06
$1,568.00
Quantity
5,393
4,065
4,101
1,741
2,511
1,030
2,249
8,211
12,660
10,423
13,839
10,493
$471.19
$748.58
$484.97
$433.86
$587.13
$968.54
$1,792.59
$1,611.86
$2,243.54
$2,155.82
$2,283.85
Nominal Cost ($m)
$1,523.11
Constant Cost
($m FY2021)
$570.44
$891.49
$568.82
$501.81
$669.47
$1,087.76
$1,978.35
$1,744.63
$2,380.42
$2,242.84
$2,329.51
$1,523.11
Quantity
11,386
16,955
5,440
5,194
11,226
12,612
32,568
35,701
48,111
40,608
37,542
25,317
Nominal Cost ($m)
Constant Cost
($m FY2021)
$435.01
$775.85
$410.87
$463.72
$428.87
$423.95
$323.11
$562.42
$676.27
$713.27
$916.29
$992.15
$526.65
$923.96
$481.90
$536.34
$489.01
$476.13
$356.60
$608.75
$717.52
$742.07
$934.61
$992.15
Quantity
1,573
1,020
694
1,095
404
243
149
409
8,092
9,631
4,686
5,527
Source: Department of Defense Budget FY2000-2021Table A-2. PGM Procurement Cost and Quantities, by Service (FY2010-FY2020)
Service |
FY2010 |
FY2011 |
FY2012 |
FY2013 |
FY2014 |
FY2015 |
FY2016 |
FY2017 |
FY2018 |
FY2019 |
FY2020* |
Total |
|
Army |
Nominal Cost ($m) |
$580.41 |
$486.71 |
$442.13 |
$240.23 |
$382.52 |
$163.73 |
$365.12 |
$968.50 |
$1,639.33 |
$1,425.64 |
$2,232.32 |
$13,377.47 |
Constant Cost ($m FY2020) |
$689.49 |
$568.78 |
$508.90 |
$272.68 |
$428.06 |
$180.46 |
$395.37 |
$1,028.14 |
$1,705.51 |
$1,454.14 |
$2,232.32 |
$15,412.24 |
|
Quantity |
5,393 |
4,065 |
4,101 |
1,741 |
2,511 |
1,030 |
2,249 |
8,211 |
12,660 |
10,848 |
15,531 |
94,039 |
|
Air Force |
Nominal Cost ($m) |
$471.19 |
$748.58 |
$484.97 |
$433.86 |
$587.13 |
$968.54 |
$1,792.59 |
$1,611.86 |
$2,243.54 |
$2,178.85 |
$2,372.15 |
$18,571.71 |
Constant Cost ($m FY2020) |
$559.74 |
$874.82 |
$558.21 |
$492.47 |
$657.04 |
$1,067.50 |
$1,941.08 |
$1,711.11 |
$2,334.11 |
$2,222.41 |
$2,372.15 |
$20,893.44 |
|
Quantity |
11,386 |
16,955 |
5,440 |
5,194 |
11,226 |
12,612 |
32,568 |
35,701 |
48,111 |
46,363 |
49,602 |
417,378 |
|
Navy |
Nominal Cost ($m) |
$435.01 |
$1,022.50 |
$767.75 |
$796.26 |
$729.05 |
$828.41 |
$740.36 |
$1,053.63 |
$1,167.53 |
$1,084.67 |
$1,541.60 |
$15,679.18 |
Constant Cost ($m FY2020) |
$516.77 |
$1,194.93 |
$883.69 |
$903.81 |
$815.86 |
$913.05 |
$801.69 |
$1,118.51 |
$1,214.66 |
$1,106.35 |
$1,541.60 |
$18,287.35 |
|
Quantity |
1,573 |
1,087 |
783 |
1,184 |
497 |
343 |
250 |
534 |
8,217 |
4,696 |
5,152 |
93,566 |
Source: Department of Defense Budget FY2000-2020 P-1 Procurement budget requests, at https://comptroller.defense.gov/Budget-Materials/, Department of Defense
National Defense Budget Estimate for FY2020 pp. 58-59FY2021 pp. 60-61, at https://comptroller.defense.gov/Portals/45/Documents/defbudget/fy2020/FY20_Green_Bookfy2021/FY21_Green_Book.pdf, Air Force FY2020
FY2021 Missile procurement budget justifications; Army FY2020FY2021 Missile procurement budget justifications; Navy FY2020FY2021 Weapons procurement budget justifications.
CRS-32
Appendix B.
Prior Year Procurement by Program
Table B-1. PGM Procurement Cost and Quantities, by Program (FY1998-FY2009)
Program
ARRGM
ATACMS
GMLRS
Hellfire
JAGM
JASSM
FY1998
FY1999
FY2000
FY2001
FY2002
FY2003
FY2004
FY2005
FY2006
FY2007
FY2008
FY2009
Nominal Cost ($m)
Constant Cost
($m FY2021)
$-
$-
$-
$89.10
$4.90
$3.90
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$41.02
$-
$-
$-
$128.83
$6.97
$5.43
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$50.44
Quantity
0
0
0
270
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Nominal Cost ($m)
Constant Cost
($m FY2021)
$89.80
$90.60
$90.80
$95.10
$35.00
$137.50
$57.60
$160.80
$104.10
$76.30
$84.78
$-
$135.65
$134.96
$133.27
$137.51
$49.76
$191.40
$78.20
$212.70
$134.50
$96.66
$105.74
$-
Quantity
109
96
110
100
24
156
60
156
98
18
84
0
Nominal Cost ($m)
Constant Cost
($m FY2021)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$130.50
$106.80
$111.30
$121.60
$125.00
$263.71
$309.21
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$181.65
$144.99
$147.22
$157.11
$158.35
$328.90
$380.19
Quantity
0
0
0
0
0
822
786
954
984
925
2070
2652
Nominal Cost ($m)
Constant Cost
($m FY2021)
$260.40
$308.30
$313.80
$282.70
$238.30
$191.10
$46.10
$202.80
$210.10
$244.50
$387.89
$483.52
$393.35
$459.26
$460.59
$408.76
$338.78
$266.01
$62.58
$268.25
$271.45
$309.73
$483.78
$594.52
Quantity
1100
2000
2425
2200
2200
137
172
1020
1423
2958
4611
5584
Nominal Cost ($m)
Constant Cost
($m FY2021)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
Quantity
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Nominal Cost ($m)
Constant Cost
($m FY2021)
$-
$-
$-
$0.20
$42.70
$53.80
$100.90
$139.20
$98.70
$156.50
$160.04
$139.70
$-
$-
$-
$0.29
$60.71
$74.89
$136.98
$184.13
$127.52
$198.25
$199.60
$171.77
CRS-33
Program
JDAM
LRASM
SDB
SDB II
Tomahawk
FY1998
FY1999
FY2000
FY2001
FY2002
FY2003
FY2004
FY2005
FY2006
FY2007
FY2008
FY2009
Quantity
0
0
0
0
76
100
240
288
75
163
111
100
Nominal Cost ($m)
Constant Cost
($m FY2021)
$64.30
$117.30
$270.40
$272.70
$602.80
$752.30
$689.40
$665.50
$306.10
$280.70
$167.10
$175.09
$97.13
$174.74
$396.89
$394.30
$856.98
$935.92
$880.29
$395.48
$355.59
$208.41
$215.28
Quantity
2202
4523
10300
11229
28945
35620
32666
29756
11605
10585
5724
6242
Nominal Cost ($m)
Constant Cost
($m FY2021)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
Quantity
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Nominal Cost ($m)
Constant Cost
($m FY2021)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$29.10
$52.20
$114.70
$94.65
$132.82
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$38.49
$67.44
$145.30
$118.05
$163.31
Quantity
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
199
567
2030
1395
2612
Nominal Cost ($m)
Constant Cost
($m FY2021)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
Quantity
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Nominal Cost ($m)
Constant Cost
($m FY2021)
$26.30
$439.20
$-
$-
$73.00
$437.10
$352.00
$277.20
$373.00
$353.00
$475.83
$280.27
$39.73
$654.25
$-
$-
$103.78
$608.44
$477.87
$366.67
$481.91
$447.18
$593.45
$344.60
Quantity
0
624
0
0
25
350
322
298
408
355
496
207
$1,047.19
Source: Department of Defense Budget FY2000-2021Table B-1. PGM Procurement Cost and Quantities, by Program (FY1998-FY2009)
Program |
FY1998 |
FY1999 |
FY2000 |
FY2001 |
FY2002 |
FY2003 |
FY2004 |
FY2005 |
FY2006 |
FY2007 |
FY2008 |
FY2009 |
|
ARRGM |
Nominal Cost ($m) |
$- |
$- |
$- |
$89.10 |
$4.90 |
$3.90 |
$- |
$- |
$- |
$- |
$- |
$41.02 |
Constant Cost ($m FY2020) |
$- |
$- |
$- |
$126.31 |
$6.83 |
$5.32 |
$- |
$- |
$- |
$- |
$- |
$49.51 |
|
Quantity |
- |
- |
- |
270 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
|
ATACMS |
Nominal Cost ($m) |
$89.80 |
$90.60 |
$90.80 |
$95.10 |
$35.00 |
$137.50 |
$57.60 |
$160.80 |
$104.10 |
$76.30 |
$84.78 |
$- |
Constant Cost ($m FY2020) |
$133.00 |
$132.40 |
$130.80 |
$134.82 |
$48.77 |
$187.51 |
$76.62 |
$208.70 |
$131.97 |
$94.84 |
$103.77 |
$- |
|
Quantity |
109 |
96 |
110 |
100 |
24 |
156 |
60 |
156 |
98 |
18 |
84 |
- |
|
GMLRS |
Nominal Cost ($m) |
$- |
$- |
$- |
$- |
$- |
$130.50 |
$106.80 |
$111.30 |
$121.60 |
$125.00 |
$263.71 |
$309.21 |
Constant Cost ($m FY2020) |
$- |
$- |
$- |
$- |
$- |
$177.96 |
$142.06 |
$144.45 |
$154.16 |
$155.38 |
$322.78 |
$373.17 |
|
Quantity |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
822 |
786 |
954 |
984 |
925 |
2,070 |
2,652 |
|
Hellfire |
Nominal Cost ($m) |
$260.40 |
$308.30 |
$313.80 |
$282.70 |
$238.30 |
$191.10 |
$46.10 |
$202.80 |
$210.10 |
$244.50 |
$387.89 |
$483.52 |
Constant Cost ($m FY2020) |
$385.66 |
$450.53 |
$452.03 |
$400.77 |
$332.03 |
$260.60 |
$61.32 |
$263.21 |
$266.35 |
$303.92 |
$474.78 |
$583.54 |
|
Quantity |
1,100 |
2,000 |
2,425 |
2,200 |
2,200 |
137 |
172 |
1,020 |
1,423 |
2,958 |
4,611 |
5,584 |
|
JAGM |
Nominal Cost ($m) |
$- |
$- |
$- |
$- |
$- |
$- |
$- |
$- |
$- |
$- |
$- |
$- |
Constant Cost ($m FY2020) |
$- |
$- |
$- |
$- |
$- |
$- |
$- |
$- |
$- |
$- |
$- |
$- |
|
Quantity |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
|
JASSM |
Nominal Cost ($m) |
$- |
$- |
$- |
$0.20 |
$42.70 |
$53.80 |
$100.90 |
$139.20 |
$98.70 |
$156.50 |
$160.04 |
$139.70 |
Constant Cost ($m FY2020) |
$- |
$- |
$- |
$0.28 |
$59.50 |
$73.37 |
$134.21 |
$180.66 |
$125.13 |
$194.53 |
$195.88 |
$168.60 |
|
Quantity |
- |
- |
- |
- |
76 |
100 |
240 |
288 |
75 |
163 |
111 |
100 |
|
JDAM |
Nominal Cost ($m) |
$64.30 |
$117.30 |
$270.40 |
$272.70 |
$602.80 |
$752.30 |
$689.40 |
$665.50 |
$306.10 |
$280.70 |
$167.10 |
$175.09 |
Constant Cost ($m FY2020) |
$95.23 |
$171.42 |
$389.51 |
$386.59 |
$839.91 |
$1,025.91 |
$917.00 |
$863.72 |
$388.06 |
$348.91 |
$204.53 |
$211.30 |
|
Quantity |
2,202 |
4,523 |
10,300 |
11,229 |
28,945 |
35,620 |
32,666 |
29,756 |
11,605 |
10,585 |
5,724 |
6,242 |
|
LRASM |
Nominal Cost ($m) |
$- |
$- |
$- |
$- |
$- |
$- |
$- |
$- |
$- |
$- |
$- |
$- |
Constant Cost ($m FY2020) |
$- |
$- |
$- |
$- |
$- |
$- |
$- |
$- |
$- |
$- |
$- |
$- |
|
Quantity |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
|
SDB |
Nominal Cost ($m) |
$- |
$- |
$- |
$- |
$- |
$- |
$- |
$29.10 |
$52.20 |
$114.70 |
$94.65 |
$132.82 |
Constant Cost ($m FY2020) |
$- |
$- |
$- |
$- |
$- |
$- |
$- |
$37.77 |
$66.18 |
$142.57 |
$115.85 |
$160.29 |
|
Quantity |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
199 |
567 |
2,030 |
1,395 |
2,612 |
|
SDB II |
Nominal Cost ($m) |
$- |
$- |
$- |
$- |
$- |
$- |
$- |
$- |
$- |
$- |
$- |
$- |
Constant Cost ($m FY2020) |
$- |
$- |
$- |
$- |
$- |
$- |
$- |
$- |
$- |
$- |
$- |
$- |
|
Quantity |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
|
SM-6 |
Nominal Cost ($m) |
$- |
$- |
$- |
$- |
$- |
$- |
$- |
$- |
$- |
$- |
$- |
$- |
Constant Cost ($m FY2020) |
$- |
$- |
$- |
$- |
$- |
$- |
$- |
$- |
$- |
$- |
$- |
$- |
|
Quantity |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
|
Tomahawk |
Nominal Cost ($m) |
$26.30 |
$439.20 |
$- |
$- |
$73.00 |
$437.10 |
$352.00 |
$277.20 |
$373.00 |
$353.00 |
$475.83 |
$280.27 |
Constant Cost ($m FY2020) |
$38.95 |
$641.82 |
$- |
$- |
$101.71 |
$596.07 |
$468.21 |
$359.77 |
$472.87 |
$438.78 |
$582.41 |
$338.24 |
|
Quantity |
- |
624 |
- |
- |
25 |
350 |
322 |
298 |
408 |
355 |
496 |
207 |
Source: Department of Defense Budget FY2000-2020 P-1 Procurement budget requests, at https://comptroller.defense.gov/Budget-Materials/, Department of Defense
National Defense Budget Estimate for FY2020 pp. 58-59FY2021 pp. 60-61, at https://comptroller.defense.gov/Portals/45/Documents/defbudget/fy2020/FY20_Green_Bookfy2021/FY21_Green_Book.pdf, Air Force FY2020
FY2021 Missile procurement budget justifications; Army FY2020FY2021 Missile procurement budget justifications; Navy FY2020FY2021 Weapons procurement budget justifications.
CRS-34
Table B-2. PGM Procurement Cost and Quantities, by Program (FY2010-FY2021)
Program
ARRGM
ATACMS
GMLRS
Hellfire
JAGM
JASSM
FY2010
FY2011
FY2012
FY2013
FY2014
FY2015
FY2016
FY2017
FY2018
FY2019
FY2020
FY2021*
Nominal Cost ($m)
Constant Cost
($m FY2021)
$47.83
$51.91
$76.56
$83.89
$94.06
$106.49
$120.80
$180.05
$183.37
$179.89
$183.74
$147.57
$57.90
$61.82
$89.80
$97.02
$107.25
$119.60
$133.32
$194.88
$194.55
$187.15
$187.41
$147.57
Quantity
33
44
72
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
24
Nominal Cost ($m)
Constant Cost
($m FY2021)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$35.60
$-
$-
$-
$-
$300.78
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$40.59
$-
$-
$-
$-
$306.80
$-
Quantity
0
0
0
0
24
0
0
0
0
232
0
$353.31
$264.55
$333.17
$214.29
$273.03
$127.15
$251.06
$408.84
Nominal Cost ($m)
$975.51
$1,027.97
Constant Cost
($m FY2021)
$427.74
Quantity
3228
2592
3194
1608
2166
768
1866
Nominal Cost ($m)
Constant Cost
($m FY2021)
$422.45
$439.99
$221.42
$146.08
$166.17
$395.94
$511.44
$523.99
$259.70
$168.96
$189.47
Quantity
4684
2970
2162
1315
Nominal Cost ($m)
Constant Cost
($m FY2021)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
Quantity
0
Nominal Cost ($m)
Constant Cost
($m FY2021)
Quantity
CRS-35
$-
$315.05
$390.77
$247.85
$311.32
$142.80
$277.08
$1,128.32
$1,221.17
$442.52
$1,128.32
$1,090.68
$1,014.88
$1,245.58
3360
6528
7668
8523
7360
$784.04
$681.68
$821.05
$460.97
$726.71
$516.61
$444.67
$865.29
$737.83
$871.14
$479.58
$741.23
$516.61
1143
3405
6639
6797
10501
5161
8790
8150
$-
$-
$-
$27.74
$83.83
$182.22
$280.57
$285.02
$262.78
$-
$-
$-
$-
$30.61
$90.74
$193.34
$291.90
$290.72
$262.78
0
0
0
0
0
0
469
899
796
854
860
$52.52
$168.23
$236.19
$230.19
$271.15
$329.16
$425.58
$431.65
$433.12
$602.83
$483.43
$505.95
$63.58
$200.35
$277.03
$266.24
$309.18
$369.67
$469.68
$467.20
$459.54
$627.16
$493.09
$505.95
0
171
202
233
187
240
340
360
360
360
390
400
Program
JDAM
Nominal Cost ($m)
LRASM
SDB
SDB II
Tomahawk
FY2010
FY2011
FY2012
FY2013
FY2014
FY2015
FY2016
FY2017
$192.32
$346.38
$127.25
$144.61
$250.47
$228.44
$533.98
$682.11
$412.50
$149.25
$167.26
$285.60
$256.56
$589.31
FY2018
FY2019
FY2020
$1,149.39
$1,103.57
$1,039.47
$1,219.51
$1,148.11
$1,060.25
FY2021*
$524.87
Constant Cost
($m FY2021)
$232.83
$738.30
$524.87
Quantity
7517
13061
4259
4678
10415
8786
22478
28596
42864
39614
28388
20338
Nominal Cost ($m)
Constant Cost
($m FY2021)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$125.75
$169.46
$174.18
$72.54
$188.65
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$136.11
$179.80
$181.21
$73.99
$188.65
Quantity
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
36
50
52
17
53
Nominal Cost ($m)
Constant Cost
($m FY2021)
$141.69
$119.22
$20.14
$1.97
$-
$51.30
$135.12
$251.36
$384.25
$209.33
$273.29
$95.83
$171.54
$141.98
$23.62
$2.28
$-
$57.61
$149.12
$272.07
$407.69
$217.78
$278.75
$95.83
Quantity
2694
2785
150
0
0
443
3494
4507
7471
5743
7078
2462
Nominal Cost ($m)
Constant Cost
($m FY2021)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$20.97
$189.63
$291.73
$352.14
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$22.25
$197.29
$297.56
$352.14
Quantity
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
90
1260
1687
1490
Nominal Cost ($m)
Constant Cost
($m FY2021)
$276.50
$596.67
$297.61
$293.58
$307.46
$317.46
$202.31
$297.51
$187.35
$98.57
$386.16
$277.69
$334.74
$710.58
$349.06
$339.56
$350.58
$356.53
$223.28
$322.01
$198.78
$102.55
$393.88
$277.69
Quantity
196
417
196
196
206
243
149
196
100
0
90
155
Source: Department of Defense Budget FY2000-2021Table B-2. PGM Procurement Cost and Quantities, by Program (FY2010-FY2020)
Program |
FY2010 |
FY2011 |
FY2012 |
FY2013 |
FY2014 |
FY2015 |
FY2016 |
FY2017 |
FY2018 |
FY2019 |
FY2020* |
Grand Total |
|
ARRGM |
Nominal Cost ($m) |
$47.83 |
$51.91 |
$76.56 |
$83.89 |
$94.06 |
$106.49 |
$120.80 |
$180.05 |
$183.37 |
$179.89 |
$183.74 |
$1,447.49 |
Constant Cost ($m FY2020) |
$56.81 |
$60.66 |
$88.12 |
$95.22 |
$105.26 |
$117.37 |
$130.80 |
$191.14 |
$190.77 |
$183.48 |
$183.74 |
$1,591.34 |
|
Quantity |
33 |
44 |
72 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
419 |
|
ATACMS |
Nominal Cost ($m) |
$- |
$- |
$- |
$- |
$35.60 |
$- |
$- |
$- |
$340.61 |
$1,398.59 |
||
Constant Cost ($m FY2020) |
$- |
$- |
$- |
$- |
$39.84 |
$- |
$- |
$- |
$- |
$- |
$340.61 |
$1,763.63 |
|
Quantity |
- |
- |
- |
- |
24 |
- |
- |
- |
240 |
1,275 |
|||
GMLRS |
Nominal Cost ($m) |
$353.31 |
$264.55 |
$333.17 |
$214.29 |
$273.03 |
$127.15 |
$251.06 |
$408.84 |
$1,027.97 |
$975.51 |
$1,274.79 |
$6,671.77 |
Constant Cost ($m FY2020) |
$419.71 |
$309.16 |
$383.48 |
$243.23 |
$305.53 |
$140.14 |
$271.86 |
$434.01 |
$1,069.46 |
$995.01 |
$1,274.79 |
$7,316.34 |
|
Quantity |
3,228 |
2,592 |
3,194 |
1,608 |
2,166 |
768 |
1,866 |
3,360 |
6,528 |
7,818 |
9,910 |
52,231 |
|
Hellfire |
Nominal Cost ($m) |
$422.45 |
$439.99 |
$221.42 |
$146.08 |
$166.17 |
$395.94 |
$784.04 |
$681.68 |
$821.05 |
$483.97 |
$730.71 |
$8,463.01 |
Constant Cost ($m FY2020) |
$501.84 |
$514.19 |
$254.86 |
$165.81 |
$185.95 |
$436.39 |
$848.99 |
$723.65 |
$854.19 |
$493.64 |
$730.71 |
$9,944.97 |
|
Quantity |
4,684 |
2,970 |
2,162 |
1,315 |
1,143 |
3,405 |
6,639 |
6,797 |
10,501 |
6,066 |
9,000 |
80,512 |
|
JAGM |
Nominal Cost ($m) |
$- |
$- |
$- |
$- |
$- |
$- |
$27.74 |
$83.83 |
$182.22 |
$280.57 |
$339.32 |
$913.68 |
Constant Cost ($m FY2020) |
$- |
$- |
$- |
$- |
$- |
$- |
$30.04 |
$88.99 |
$189.58 |
$286.18 |
$339.32 |
$934.11 |
|
Quantity |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
469 |
899 |
796 |
1,051 |
3,215 |
|
JASSM |
Nominal Cost ($m) |
$52.52 |
$168.23 |
$236.19 |
$230.19 |
$271.15 |
$329.16 |
$425.58 |
$431.65 |
$433.12 |
$602.83 |
$503.43 |
$4,575.77 |
Constant Cost ($m FY2020) |
$62.38 |
$196.60 |
$271.86 |
$261.28 |
$303.44 |
$362.79 |
$460.83 |
$458.22 |
$450.60 |
$614.88 |
$503.43 |
$5,078.47 |
|
Quantity |
- |
171 |
202 |
233 |
187 |
240 |
340 |
360 |
360 |
360 |
430 |
4,036 |
|
JDAM |
Nominal Cost ($m) |
$192.32 |
$346.38 |
$127.25 |
$144.61 |
$250.47 |
$228.44 |
$533.98 |
$682.11 |
$1,149.39 |
$1,010.55 |
$1,148.90 |
$10,178.07 |
Constant Cost ($m FY2020) |
$228.46 |
$404.79 |
$146.47 |
$164.14 |
$280.29 |
$251.78 |
$578.21 |
$724.11 |
$1,195.78 |
$1,030.75 |
$1,148.90 |
$11,995.77 |
|
Quantity |
7,517 |
13,061 |
4,259 |
4,678 |
10,415 |
8,786 |
22,478 |
28,596 |
42,864 |
39,688 |
40,388 |
412,127 |
|
LRASM |
Nominal Cost ($m) |
$- |
$- |
$- |
$- |
$- |
$- |
$- |
$125.75 |
$169.46 |
$165.58 |
$143.20 |
$603.99 |
Constant Cost ($m FY2020) |
$- |
$- |
$- |
$- |
$- |
$- |
$- |
$133.50 |
$176.30 |
$168.89 |
$143.20 |
$621.88 |
|
Quantity |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
36 |
50 |
50 |
48 |
184 |
|
SDB |
Nominal Cost ($m) |
$141.69 |
$119.22 |
$20.14 |
$1.97 |
$- |
$51.30 |
$135.12 |
$251.36 |
$384.25 |
$209.36 |
$275.44 |
$2,013.32 |
Constant Cost ($m FY2020) |
$168.32 |
$139.33 |
$23.18 |
$2.24 |
$- |
$56.54 |
$146.31 |
$266.84 |
$399.76 |
$213.54 |
$275.44 |
$2,214.16 |
|
Quantity |
2,694 |
2,785 |
150 |
- |
- |
443 |
3,494 |
4,507 |
7,471 |
5,744 |
7,078 |
41,169 |
|
SDB II |
Nominal Cost ($m) |
$- |
$- |
$- |
$- |
$- |
$- |
$- |
$- |
$20.97 |
$192.13 |
$330.90 |
$544.00 |
Constant Cost ($m FY2020) |
$- |
$- |
$- |
$- |
$- |
$- |
$- |
$- |
$21.81 |
$195.97 |
$330.90 |
$548.69 |
|
Quantity |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
90 |
1,260 |
1,925 |
3,275 |
|
SM-6 |
Nominal Cost ($m) |
$- |
$246.65 |
$356.88 |
$332.54 |
$300.19 |
$404.46 |
$417.25 |
$491.21 |
$491.26 |
$490.21 |
$488.31 |
$4,018.96 |
Constant Cost ($m FY2020) |
$- |
$288.25 |
$410.77 |
$377.45 |
$335.93 |
$445.79 |
$451.82 |
$521.46 |
$511.09 |
$500.01 |
$488.31 |
$4,330.87 |
|
Quantity |
- |
67 |
89 |
89 |
93 |
100 |
101 |
125 |
125 |
125 |
125 |
1,039 |
|
Tomahawk |
Nominal Cost ($m) |
$276.50 |
$596.67 |
$297.61 |
$293.58 |
$307.46 |
$317.46 |
$202.31 |
$297.51 |
$187.35 |
$98.57 |
$386.73 |
$6,348.64 |
Constant Cost ($m FY2020) |
$328.46 |
$697.29 |
$342.55 |
$333.24 |
$344.06 |
$349.89 |
$219.07 |
$315.82 |
$194.92 |
$100.54 |
$386.73 |
$7,651.42 |
|
Quantity |
196 |
417 |
196 |
196 |
206 |
243 |
149 |
196 |
100 |
- |
90 |
5,074 |
Source: Department of Defense Budget FY2000-2020 P-1 Procurement budget requests, at https://comptroller.defense.gov/Budget-Materials/, Department of Defense
National Defense Budget Estimate for FY2020 pp. 58-59FY2021 pp. 60-61, at https://comptroller.defense.gov/Portals/45/Documents/defbudget/fy2020/FY20_Green_Bookfy2021/FY21_Green_Book.pdf,, Air Force FY2020
FY2021 Missile procurement budget justifications; Army FY2020FY2021 Missile procurement budget justifications; Navy FY2020FY2021 Weapons procurement budget justifications.
CRS-36
Precision-Guided Munitions: Background and Issues for Congress
Author Information
John R. Hoehn
Analyst in Military Capabilities and Programs
Samuel D. Ryder
Research Assistant
Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan
shared staff to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and
under the direction of Congress. Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other
than public understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in
connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not
subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or
material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you wish to
copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.
Congressional Research Service
R45996 · VERSION 7 · UPDATED
37
Weapons procurement budget justifications.
Author Contact Information
1. |
Air Force FY2020 Missile Procurement budget justifications; Army FY2020 Missile Procurement budget justifications; Navy FY2020 Weapons Procurement budget justifications. |
2. |
|
3. |
IHS Janes, "GBU-39/B Small Diameter Bomb (SDB I), GBU-39B/B Laser SDB (LSDB)," June 7, 2019, at https://janes.ihs.com/Janes/Display/jalw9077-jalw. |
4. |
Barry D. Watts, Six Decades of Guided Munitions and Battle Networks: Progress and Prospects, Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, Washington, DC, March 2007, at https://csbaonline.org/uploads/documents/2007.03.01-Six-Decades-Of-Guided-Weapons.pdf. |
5. |
John T. Correll, "Daylight Precision Bombing," Air Force Magazine, October 2008, at http://www.airforcemag.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/2008/October%202008/1008daylight.aspx. |
6. |
Circular error probable is the metric used to identify how accurate a specific munition is. This metric measures the distance 50% of a type of weapon will land from the aim point. Barry D. Watts, Six Decades of Guided Munitions and Battle Networks: Progress and Prospects, Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, Washington, DC, March 2007, pp. 9-10, at https://csbaonline.org/uploads/documents/2007.03.01-Six-Decades-Of-Guided-Weapons.pdf. |
7. |
During Operation Desert Storm, the stockpile of laser guided bombs was limited due to cost. A single Paveway bomb tail kit in 1991 cost approximately $20,000, a reduction from $40,000 in 1998. See Malcolm W. Browne, "Invention That Shaped the Gulf War: the Laser-Guided Bomb," New York Times, February 26, 1991, pp. C-1, at https://www.nytimes.com/1991/02/26/science/invention-that-shaped-the-gulf-war-the-laser-guided-bomb.html. |
8. |
Eliot Cohen, Tom Keaney, et al., Gulf War Air Power Study Volume IV: Weapons, Tactics, and Training and Space Operations, U.S. Air Force, Washington, DC, 1993, https://media.defense.gov/2010/Sep/27/2001329817/-1/-1/0/AFD-100927-066.pdf. |
9. |
|
10. |
Jan van Tol, Mark Gunzinger, Andrew Krepinevich, et al., AirSea Battle: A Point-of-Departure Operational Concept, Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, Washington, DC, May 2010, https://csbaonline.org/uploads/documents/2010.05.18-AirSea-Battle.pdf. |
11. |
Jan Van Tol et al., AirSea Battle: A Point-of-Departure Operational Concept, Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, Washington, DC, May 18, 2010, p. 1, https://csbaonline.org/uploads/documents/2010.05.18-AirSea-Battle.pdf. |
12. |
Jan Van Tol et al., AirSea Battle: A Point-of-Departure Operational Concept, Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, Washington, DC, May 18, 2010, p. 1, https://csbaonline.org/uploads/documents/2010.05.18-AirSea-Battle.pdf. |
13. |
According to IHS Janes, the S-400 has a maximum range of 400 kilometers. IHS Janes "S-400," October 7, 2019, at https://janes.ihs.com/Janes/Display/jlad0593-jaad. |
14. |
According to IHS Janes, the DF-21D has a range of 1,500 kilometers, and the DF-26 has a range of approximately 4,000 kilometers. See IHS Janes "DF-21," February 21, 2019, at https://janes.ihs.com/Janes/Display/jsws0411-jsws, and IHS Janes "DF-26," February 1, 2019, at https://janes.ihs.com/Janes/Display/jswsa399-jsws. |
15. |
Jan van Tol, Mark Gunzinger, Andrew Krepinevich, et al., AirSea Battle: A Point-of-Departure Operational Concept, Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, Washington, DC, May 2010, https://csbaonline.org/uploads/documents/2010.05.18-AirSea-Battle.pdf. |
16. |
See IHS Janes "DF-21," February 21, 2019, at https://janes.ihs.com/Janes/Display/jsws0411-jsws. |
17. |
Guided bombs have a maximum range of 40 nautical miles; longer-range missiles typically have a range around 150-500 nautical miles. |
18. |
Jan van Tol, Mark Gunzinger, Andrew Krepinevich, et al., AirSea Battle: A Point-of-Departure Operational Concept, Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, Washington, DC, May 2010, https://csbaonline.org/uploads/documents/2010.05.18-AirSea-Battle.pdf. |
19. |
IHS Janes "GBU-10/12/16/58 Paveway II," October 17, 2018, at https://janes.ihs.com/Janes/Display/jalwa051-jalw. |
20. |
IHS Janes "GBU-22, GBU-24, GBU-27 Paveway III, and Enhanced Paveway III," September 10, 2019, at https://janes.ihs.com/Janes/Display/jalw3671-jalw. |
21. |
IHS Janes "Paveway IV (PGB)," February 13, 2019, at https://janes.ihs.com/Janes/Display/jalw9213-jalw. |
22. |
IHS Janes "GBU-10/12/16/58 Paveway II," October 17, 2018, at https://janes.ihs.com/Janes/Display/jalwa051-jalw. |
23. |
U.S. Air Force FY2020 Procurement of Ammunition Line Item 353020 General Purpose Bombs, at https://apps.dtic.mil/procurement/Y2020/AirForce/stamped/U_P40_353020_BSA-13_BA-1_APP-3011F_PB_2020.pdf. |
24. |
IHS Janes "Paveway IV (PGB)," February 13, 2019, at https://janes.ihs.com/Janes/Display/jalw9213-jalw. |
25. |
|
26. |
IHS Janes "GBU-31/32/38 Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM)," June 18, 2019, at https://janes.ihs.com/Janes/Display/jalw3667-jalw. |
27. |
IHS Janes "GBU-31/32/38 Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM)," June 18, 2019, at https://janes.ihs.com/Janes/Display/jalw3667-jalw. |
28. |
|
29. |
IHS Janes "GBU-31/32/38 Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM)," June 18, 2019, at https://janes.ihs.com/Janes/Display/jalw3667-jalw. |
30. |
Tobias Naegele, "Powered JDAM: Boeing's New Alternative to Cruise Missiles," Air Force Magazine, February 28, 2020, https://www.airforcemag.com/power-jdam-boeings-new-alternative-to-cruise-missiles/. |
31. |
|
32. |
IHS Janes "GBU-31/32/38 Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM)," June 18, 2019, at https://janes.ihs.com/Janes/Display/jalw3667-jalw. |
33. |
|
34. |
|
35. |
|
36. |
IHS Janes "GBU-39/B Small Diameter Bomb (SDB I), GBU-39B/B Laser SDB (LSDB), June 7, 2019, at https://janes.ihs.com/Janes/Display/jalw9077-jalw. |
37. |
The SDB II is a separate procurement line item in both budget justifications and in Congressional authorization and appropriations. |
38. |
IHS Janes "StormBreaker bomb (GBU-53/B SDB II)," July 8, 2019, at https://janes.ihs.com/Janes/Display/jalwa099-jalw. |
39. |
IHS Janes "StormBreaker bomb (GBU-53/B SDB II)," July 8, 2019, at https://janes.ihs.com/Janes/Display/jalwa099-jalw. |
40. |
IHS Janes "StormBreaker bomb (GBU-53/B SDB II)," July 8, 2019, at https://janes.ihs.com/Janes/Display/jalwa099-jalw. |
41. |
|
42. |
U.S. Air Force FY2020 Procurement of Missiles Line Item SDB000 Small Diameter, at https://apps.dtic.mil/procurement/Y2020/AirForce/stamped/U_P40_SDB000_BSA-2_BA-2_APP-3020F_PB_2020.pdf. |
43. |
U.S. Air Force FY2020 Procurement of Missiles Line Item SDB0032 Small Diameter Bomb II, athttps://apps.dtic.mil/procurement/Y2020/AirForce/stamped/U_P40_SDB002_BSA-2_BA-2_APP-3020F_PB_2020.pdf, and U.S. Navy FY2020 Weapons Procurement Line Item 2238 Small Diameter Bomb II (SDB II), at https://apps.dtic.mil/procurement/Y2020/Navy/stamped/U_P40_2238_BSA-2_BA-2_APP-1507N_PB_2020.pdf. |
44. |
IHS Janes "AGM-114 Hellfire and Longbow Hellfire," June 21, 2019, at https://janes.ihs.com/Janes/Display/jalw3064-jalw. |
45. |
IHS Janes "AGM-114 Hellfire and Longbow Hellfire," June 21, 2019, at https://janes.ihs.com/Janes/Display/jalw3064-jalw. |
46. |
IHS Janes "AGM-114 Hellfire and Longbow Hellfire," June 21, 2019, at https://janes.ihs.com/Janes/Display/jalw3064-jalw. |
47. |
|
48. |
IHS Janes "AGM-114 Hellfire and Longbow Hellfire," June 21, 2019, at https://janes.ihs.com/Janes/Display/jalw3064-jalw. |
49. |
|
50. |
U.S. Army FY2020 Missiles Procurement Line Item 1338C70000 Hellfire Sys Summary, at https://apps.dtic.mil/procurement/Y2020/Army/stamped/U_P40_1338C70000_BSA-20_BA-2_APP-2032A_PB_2020.pdf, U.S. Air Force FY2020 Missile Procurement Line Item PRDTA2 Predator Hellfire Missile, at https://apps.dtic.mil/procurement/Y2020/AirForce/stamped/U_P40_PRDTA2_BSA-2_BA-2_APP-3020F_PB_2020.pdf, and U.S. Navy FY2020 Weapons Procurement Line Item 2254 Hellfire, at https://apps.dtic.mil/procurement/Y2020/Navy/stamped/U_P40_2254_BSA-2_BA-2_APP-1507N_PB_2020.pdf. |
51. |
Department of Defense, "FY2020 Program Acquisition Costs by Weapons System," at https://comptroller.defense.gov/Portals/45/Documents/defbudget/fy2020/fy2020_Weapons.pdf. |
52. |
IHS Janes "Joint Air-to-Ground Missile (JAGM)," April 11, 2019, at https://janes.ihs.com/Janes/Display/jalw9220-jalw. |
53. |
IHS Janes "Joint Air-to-Ground Missile (JAGM)," April 11, 2019, at https://janes.ihs.com/Janes/Display/jalw9220-jalw. |
54. |
IHS Janes "Joint Air-to-Ground Missile (JAGM)," April 11, 2019, at https://janes.ihs.com/Janes/Display/jalw9220-jalw. |
55. |
U.S. Air Force FY2020 Missile Procurement Line Item JAGM00 Joint Air-to-Ground Munition, at https://apps.dtic.mil/procurement/Y2020/AirForce/stamped/U_P40_JAGM00_BSA-2_BA-2_APP-3020F_PB_2020.pdf. |
56. |
|
57. |
IHS Janes "AGM-158A JASSM and AGM-158B JASSM-ER," July 23, 2019, at https://janes.ihs.com/Janes/Display/jalw3784-jalw. |
58. |
|
59. |
IHS Janes "AGM-158A JASSM and AGM-158B JASSM-ER," July 23, 2019, at https://janes.ihs.com/Janes/Display/jalw3784-jalw. |
60. |
IHS Janes "AGM-158A JASSM and AGM-158B JASSM-ER," July 23, 2019, at https://janes.ihs.com/Janes/Display/jalw3784-jalw. |
61. |
IHS Janes "AGM-158A JASSM and AGM-158B JASSM-ER," July 23, 2019, at https://janes.ihs.com/Janes/Display/jalw3784-jalw. |
62. |
|
63. |
IHS Janes "AGM-158A JASSM and AGM-158B JASSM-ER," July 23, 2019, at https://janes.ihs.com/Janes/Display/jalw3784-jalw. |
64. |
Department of Defense, "Comprehensive Selected Acquisition Reports for the Annual 2018 Reporting Requirements as Updated by the President's Fiscal Year 2020 Budget," press release, August 1, 2019, https://media.defense.gov/2019/Aug/01/2002165676/-1/-1/1/DEPARTMENT-OF-DEFENSE-SELECTED-ACQUISITION-REPORTS-(SARS)-DECEMBER-2018.PDF. |
65. |
IHS Janes "AGM-158A JASSM and AGM-158B JASSM-ER," July 23, 2019, at https://janes.ihs.com/Janes/Display/jalw3784-jalw. |
66. |
Sara Sirota, "Air Force reveals plans to grow stockpile of JASSM, LRASM missiles," Inside Defense, September 27, 2019, https://insidedefense.com/daily-news/air-force-reveals-plans-grow-stockpile-jassm-lrasm-missiles. |
67. |
Sara Sirota, "Air Force, Lockheed Martin finalize $818 million JASSM-ER contract," Inside Defense, April 1, 2020, https://insidedefense.com/insider/air-force-lockheed-martin-finalize-818-million-jassm-er-contract. |
68. |
IHS Janes "AGM-158C Long-Range Anti-Ship Missile (LRASM)," July 8, 2019, at https://janes.ihs.com/Janes/Display/jalwa137-jalw. |
69. |
IHS Janes "AGM-158C Long-Range Anti-Ship Missile (LRASM)," July 8, 2019, at https://janes.ihs.com/Janes/Display/jalwa137-jalw. |
70. |
Sara Sirota, "Air Force reveals plans to grow stockpile of JASSM, LRASM missiles," Inside Defense, September 27, 2019, https://insidedefense.com/daily-news/air-force-reveals-plans-grow-stockpile-jassm-lrasm-missiles. |
71. |
Department of Defense, "FY2020 Program Acquisition Costs by Weapons System," at https://comptroller.defense.gov/Portals/45/Documents/defbudget/fy2020/fy2020_Weapons.pdf. |
72. |
Sara Sirota, "Air Force reveals plans to grow stockpile of JASSM, LRASM missiles," Inside Defense, September 27, 2019, at https://insidedefense.com/daily-news/air-force-reveals-plans-grow-stockpile-jassm-lrasm-missiles. |
73. |
IHS Janes "AGM-88E Advanced Anti-Radiation Guided Missile (AARGM)," July 31, 2019, at https://janes.ihs.com/Janes/Display/jalw3723-jalw. |
74. |
IHS Janes "AGM-88E Advanced Anti-Radiation Guided Missile (AARGM)," July 31, 2019, at https://janes.ihs.com/Janes/Display/jalw3723-jalw. |
75. |
Department of Defense, Program Acquisition Cost by Weapon System, Washington, DC, March 2019, p. 5-3, https://comptroller.defense.gov/Portals/45/Documents/defbudget/fy2020/fy2020_Weapons.pdf. |
76. |
|
77. |
IHS Janes "AGM-88E Advanced Anti-Radiation Guided Missile (AARGM)," July 31, 2019, at https://janes.ihs.com/Janes/Display/jalw3723-jalw. |
78. |
IHS Janes "227 mm MLRS/GMLRS rockets," April 3, 2019, at https://janes.ihs.com/Janes/Display/jah_1074-jah_. |
79. |
IHS Janes "227 mm MLRS/GMLRS rockets," April 3, 2019, at https://janes.ihs.com/Janes/Display/jah_1074-jah_. |
80. |
|
81. |
IHS Janes "227 mm MLRS/GMLRS rockets," April 3, 2019, at https://janes.ihs.com/Janes/Display/jah_1074-jah_. |
82. |
IHS Janes "610 mm Army Tactical Missile System rockets," June 28, 2019, at https://janes.ihs.com/Janes/Display/jah_1090-jah_. |
83. |
IHS Janes "610 mm Army Tactical Missile System rockets," June 28, 2019, at https://janes.ihs.com/Janes/Display/jah_1090-jah_. |
84. |
|
85. |
U.S. Army Missile Procurement Line Item 6472C98510 ARMY TACTICAL MSL SYS (ATACMS) – SYS SUS, at https://apps.dtic.mil/procurement/Y2020/Army/stamped/U_P40_6472C98510_BSA-30_BA-2_APP-2032A_PB_2020.pdf |
86. |
IHS Janes "610 mm Army Tactical Missile System rockets," June 28, 2019, at https://janes.ihs.com/Janes/Display/jah_1090-jah_. |
87. |
|
88. |
Sydney Freedberg Jr., "PRSM: Lockheed Long-Range Missile Passes Short-Range Stress Test," Breaking Defense, March 19, 2020, https://breakingdefense.com/2020/03/lockheed-long-range-missile-passes-short-range-stress-test/. |
89. |
IHS Janes "Tomahawk/RGM/UGM-109A/B/C/D/E," September 2, 2019, at https://janes.ihs.com/Janes/Display/jnws0162-jnw_. |
90. |
IHS Janes "Tomahawk/RGM/UGM-109A/B/C/D/E," September 2, 2019, at https://janes.ihs.com/Janes/Display/jnws0162-jnw_. |
91. |
IHS Janes "Tomahawk/RGM/UGM-109A/B/C/D/E," September 2, 2019, at https://janes.ihs.com/Janes/Display/jnws0162-jnw_. |
92. |
|
93. |
U.S. Navy FY2020 Weapons Procurement Line Item 2101 Tomahawk, at https://apps.dtic.mil/procurement/Y2020/Navy/stamped/U_P40_2101_BSA-1_BA-2_APP-1507N_PB_2020.pdf. |
94. |
U.S. Navy FY2020 Weapons Procurement Line Item 2101 Tomahawk, at https://apps.dtic.mil/procurement/Y2020/Navy/stamped/U_P40_2101_BSA-1_BA-2_APP-1507N_PB_2020.pdf. |
95. |
IHS Janes "Stand Missile-6 (SM-6)/Extended Range Active Missile ERAM)," April 3, 2019, at https://janes.ihs.com/Janes/Display/jnw_0076-jnw_. |
96. |
Raytheon, "One missile, many missions: SM-6 Missile Gives Surface Forces More Power in More Places," press release, January 9, 2019, https://www.raytheon.com/news/feature/sm-6_anti-surface_warfare. |
97. |
U.S. Navy FY2014 Weapons Procurement Line Item 2234 Standard Missile, at https://apps.dtic.mil/procurement/Y2014/Navy/stamped/P40_2234_BSA-2_BA-2_APP-1507N_PB_2014.pdf. |
98. |
U.S. Navy FY2020 Weapons Procurement Line Item 2234 Standard Missile, at https://apps.dtic.mil/procurement/Y2020/Navy/stamped/U_P40_2234_BSA-2_BA-2_APP-1507N_PB_2020.pdf. |
99. |
Department of Defense, "Comprehensive Selected Acquisition Reports for the Annual 2018 Reporting Requirements as Updated by the President's Fiscal Year 2020 Budget," press release, August 1, 2019, https://media.defense.gov/2019/Aug/01/2002165676/-1/-1/1/DEPARTMENT-OF-DEFENSE-SELECTED-ACQUISITION-REPORTS-(SARS)-DECEMBER-2018.PDF. |
100. |
U.S. Navy FY2020 Weapons Procurement Line Item 2234 Standard Missile, at https://apps.dtic.mil/procurement/Y2020/Navy/stamped/U_P40_2234_BSA-2_BA-2_APP-1507N_PB_2020.pdf. |
101. |
IHS Janes "Naval Strike Missile (NSM)," May, 21, 2019, at https://janes.ihs.com/Janes/Display/jnws0911-jnw_. |
102. |
IHS Janes "Naval Strike Missile (NSM)," May, 21, 2019, at https://janes.ihs.com/Janes/Display/jnws0911-jnw_. |
103. |
|
104. |
U.S. Navy FY2020 Weapons Procurement Line Item 2292 LCS OTH Missile, at https://apps.dtic.mil/procurement/Y2020/Navy/stamped/U_P40_2292_BSA-2_BA-2_APP-1507N_PB_2020.pdf. |
105. |
Gary Roughead, Eric Edelman, et al., Providing for the Common Defense, National Defense Strategy Commission, The Assessment and Recommendations of the National Defense Strategy Commission, 2018, https://www.usip.org/sites/default/files/2018-11/providing-for-the-common-defense.pdf. |
106. |
See P.L. 115-232 §1061 and §1067. |
107. |
For more information, see CRS Report R43838, Renewed Great Power Competition: Implications for Defense—Issues for Congress, by Ronald O'Rourke. |
108. |
Gary Roughead, Eric Edelman, et al., Providing for the Common Defense, National Defense Strategy Commission, The Assessment and Recommendations of the National Defense Strategy Commission, 2018, https://www.usip.org/sites/default/files/2018-11/providing-for-the-common-defense.pdf. |
109. |
Chris Baraniuk, "Small drone 'shot with Patriot missile,'" BBC, March 15, 2017, at https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-39277940. |
110. |
For more information on the INF treaty and its implications for U.S. policy, see CRS Report R43832, Russian Compliance with the Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty: Background and Issues for Congress, by Amy F. Woolf. |
111. |
For more information on each of these technologies, see CRS Report R45811, Hypersonic Weapons: Background and Issues for Congress, by Kelley M. Sayler, and CRS Report R45178, Artificial Intelligence and National Security, by Kelley M. Sayler. |