Precision-Guided Munitions: Background and
June 26, 2020
Issues for Congress
John R. Hoehn
Over the years, the U.S. military has become reliant on precision-guided munitions
Analyst in Military
(PGMs) to execute military operations. PGMs are used in ground, air, and naval
Capabilities and Programs
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
Samuel D. Ryder
air- and ship-launched missiles, multiple launched rockets, and guided bombs. These
Research Assistant
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).

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.
 Air-Launched: Paveway Laser Guided Bomb, Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM), Small
Diameter Bomb, Small Diameter Bomb II, Hellfire Missile, Joint Air-to-Ground Missile, Joint
Air-to-Surface Strike Missile (JASSM), Long Range Anti-Ship Missile (LRASM), and Advanced
Anti-Radiation Guided Missile.
 Ground-Launched: Guided Multiple Launch Rocket System (GMLRS), Army Tactical Missile
System (ATACMS), and Precision Strike Missile (PrSM);
 Naval PGMs: Tomahawk Cruise Missile, Standard Missile-6 (SM-6), and Naval Strike Missile.
Congress may consider several issues regarding PGMs, including
 planned procurement quantities and stockpile assessments,
 defense industrial base production capacity,
 development timelines,
 supply chain security,
 affordability and cost-effectiveness, and
 emerging factors that may affect PGM programs.
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
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
https://comptrol er.defense.gov/Budget-Materials/, Department of Defense National Defense Budget Estimate for
FY2020 pp. 58-59, at https://comptrol er.defense.gov/Portals/45/Documents/defbudget/fy2020/
FY20_Green_Book.pdf, Air Force FY2020 Missile procurement budget justifications; Army FY2020 Missile
procurement budget justifications; Navy FY2020 Weapons procurement budget justifications.
Notes: FY1998 through FY2020 totals are actual dol ars appropriated. FY2021 is the requested amount. FY2022
through FY2025 are projected amounts.

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

1 Air Force FY2020 Missile Procurement budget justifications; Army FY2020 Missile Procurement budget
justifications; Navy FY2020 Weapons Procurement budget justifications.
Congressional Research Service

1

Precision-Guided Munitions: Background and Issues for Congress

 planned procurement quantities and stockpile assessments,
 defense industrial base production capacity,
 development timelines,
 supply chain security,
 affordability and cost-effectiveness, and
 emerging factors that may affect PGM programs.
Background
DOD defines a PGM as “[a] guided weapon intended to destroy a point target and minimize
collateral damage.”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).3 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.4 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.5 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.6 During the

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/2007.03.01-
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
Congressional Research Service

2

link to page 8 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
they struck a number of critical targets, reduced the number of combat sorties required, and
limited collateral damage to civilian structures.8
Operations over the past decade in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria have demonstrated DOD’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 2014.9 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/AFD-
100927-066.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/Airpower-
Summaries/.
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
https://comptrol er.defense.gov/Budget-Materials/; Air Force FY2021 missile procurement budget justifications;
Army FY2021 missile procurement budget justifications; Navy FY2021 weapons procurement budget
justifications, and Air Forces Central Air Power Summary.
Notes: Bomb procurement includes JDAM, Small Diameter Bomb, and Small Diameter Bomb II. Missile
procurement includes Advanced Anti-Radiation Guided Missile, Army Tactical Missile System, Guided Multiple
Launch Rocket System, Hellfire, Joint Air-to-Surface Strike Missile, Long Range Anti-Ship Missile, and Tomahawk.
* denotes the Administration’s request, ** denotes programmed funding and quantities.
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.10 Anti-access systems can be defined
as capabilities “associated with denying access to major fixed-point targets, especially large
forward bases.”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
Peer competitors like China and Russia have developed sophisticated air defenses, such as the S-
300PMU (SA-20) and S-400 (SA-21),13 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

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.
Congressional Research Service

4

link to page 9

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.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

Source: Bryan Clark, Peter Haynes, and Bryan McGrath, et al., Restoring American Seapower: A New Fleet
Architecture for the United States Navy, Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, Washington, DC,
February 9, 2017, p. 11, https://csbaonline.org/uploads/documents/CSBA6292-
Fleet_Architecture_Study_REPRINT_web.pdf.
Note: The figure notes state “Data to build this chart derived from OSD, Military and Security Developments
Involving the People’s Republic of China 2016.”
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

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

link to page 10

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
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/.
Air-Launched Precision-Guided Munitions
Paveway Laser-Guided Bombs
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.19 Paveway has received several upgrades, with the development of
Paveway III (in the 1990s), which improves low-altitude guidance,20 and Paveway IV (in the late
1990s), which adds satellite guidance to improve accuracy.21 The U.S. military predominately

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.
Congressional Research Service

6

link to page 11 link to page 12

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.22 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.23 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
Figure 5. Paveway II

Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2d/Paveway_II_p1230135.jpg.

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.
Congressional Research Service

7

link to page 13 link to page 14

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/.
Note: In this photo, Marines load a GBU-12 Paveway II laser-guided bomb onto an F-35B Lightning II aircraft on
the flight deck of the USS Wasp during a certification exercise in the Pacific Ocean, April 18, 2018. Marine Corps
photo by Cpl. Stormy Mendez.
Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM)
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-
31/32/38 depending on the weight of the bomb.25 These weapons have a reported range of 13
nautical miles.26 The Air Force and Navy began studying how to deliver such weapons in a
program known as the Advanced Bomb Family during the 1980s.27 The first JDAMs were
delivered in 1997, and underwent operational testing between 1998 and 1999.28 JDAM kits are
reported to have an accuracy to within 3 meters (approximately 10 feet).29 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

25 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.
Congressional Research Service

8

link to page 14

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 low-
cost 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)

Source: https://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/Visit/Museum-Exhibits/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/197589/gbu-3132-
joint-direct-attack-munitions-jdam/.
Note: The GBU-31/32 JDAM on display in the Cold War Gallery at the National Museum of the U.S. Air Force
(U.S. Air Force photo).
DOD has procured more than 371,000 JDAM kits since 1998, and it plans to procure an
additional 75,000 between FY2020 and FY2024.31 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

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 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.
Congressional Research Service

9

link to page 14 link to page 14 link to page 14 link to page 14 link to page 14 link to page 15

Precision-Guided Munitions: Background and Issues for Congress

Table 1. JDAM Requested and Programmed Procurement in the FYDP

Grand
FY2020
FY2021a
FY2022b
FY2023b
FY2024b
FY2025b
Total
Cost
($mil ions)
$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,
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.hil .af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/909505/munitions-airmen-key-players-during-
combat-exercises-at-hil -afb/.
Notes: “Airmen from the 325th Maintenance Squadron, Tyndall Air Force Base, FL., lift a GBU-32 bomb tail
section onto the primary bomb body at Hil AFB, UT. The bombs being assembled were later dropped by aircraft
participating in exercise Combat Hammer at Hil AFB and the Utah Test and Training Range.” (U.S. Air Force
photo by Paul Holcomb.)
Small Diameter Bomb (SDB) and Small Diameter Bomb II
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
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

33 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/.
Congressional Research Service

10

link to page 16

Precision-Guided Munitions: Background and Issues for Congress

in 2006.34 According to the Air Force, the SDB has a range of approximately 40 nautical miles.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

Source: https://www.jber.jb.mil/News/Articles/Article/592933/operational-f-22s-employ-small-diameter-bombs-
during-wsep/.
Notes: During a Combat Hammer exercise, Alaska F-22 Raptors became the first operational F-22 unit to drop
GBU-39 small diameter bombs. Combat Hammer—a weapons system evaluation program sponsored by the 86th
Fighter Weapons Squadron—provided an opportunity for an operational unit to employ the bombs in a realistic
tactical training environment. (U.S. Air Force photo/Tech. Sgt. Dana Rosso.)
The Air Force developed a second small diameter bomb, the GBU-53 laser-guided smaller
diameter bomb, or SDB II (see Figure 10).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.38 Development for the SDB II began
in 2005, and the Air Force declared initial operating capability in 2019.39 The U.S. exports SDB II
to Australia and South Korea as of 2019.40

34 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/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.
Congressional Research Service

11

link to page 16 link to page 17 link to page 17 link to page 17 link to page 17 link to page 17

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.41 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
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
Table 2. Small Diameter Bomb and Small Diameter Bomb II Requested and
Programmed Procurement in the FYDP

FY2020
FY2021a
FY2022b
FY2023b
FY2024b
FY2025b
Total
SDB Cost
$273.29
$95.83
$45.48
$45.47
$91.41
$93.05
$644.53
($mil ions)
SDB
7,078
2,462
1,158
1,180
2,435
2,435
16,748
Quantity
SDB II Cost
$291.73
$352.14
$388.42
$404.04
$347.41
$309.10
$2,092.84
($mil ions)
SDB II
1,687
1,490
1,749
1,775
1,662
1,376
9,739
Quantity

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_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.
Congressional Research Service

12

link to page 18 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
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.
AGM-114 Hellfire Missile
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 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.45 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.46 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
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
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.

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 U.S. Air Force, “MQ-1B Predator Fact Sheet,” September 23, 2015, at https://www.af.mil/About-Us/Fact-Sheets/
Display/Article/104469/mq-1b-predator/.
48 IHS Janes “AGM-114 Hellfire and Longbow Hellfire,” June 21, 2019, at https://janes.ihs.com/Janes/Display/
jalw3064-jalw.
Congressional Research Service

13

link to page 18 link to page 17 link to page 17 link to page 17 link to page 17 link to page 17

Precision-Guided Munitions: Background and Issues for Congress

Figure 11. AGM-114 Hellfire

Source: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Lockheed_Martin_Longbow_Hellfire.jpg.
Note: This image depicts an “exploded” view, depicting the internal components of the missile.
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.49 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 In its FY2020 recent budget request, DOD
states that it is requesting to procure the maximum production of Hellfire missiles.51
Table 3. AGM-114 Hellfire Missile Requested and Programmed Procurement in
the FYDP

FY2020
FY2021a
FY2022b
FY2023b
FY2024b
FY2025b
Total
Cost
$726.71
$516.61
$196.74
$233.44
$188.21
$41.82
$1,903.52
($mil ions)
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.

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

link to page 19 link to page 20

Precision-Guided Munitions: Background and Issues for Congress

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
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-
18E/F Super Hornet, MQ-1C Grey Eagle, MH-60M Defensive Air Penetrator, MH-60S Seahawk,
F-35 Lightning II, and P-8 Poseidon.53 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.
Note: The JAGM’s design integrates a new seeker onto the AGM-114R Hellfire II missile body (Lockheed
Martin).
JAGM entered low-rate initial production in FY2017.54 All three services are procuring JAGM,
though the Air Force is requesting only 60 missiles in FY2020, with no projections of additional
procurement.55 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).

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.
Congressional Research Service

15

link to page 17 link to page 17 link to page 17 link to page 17 link to page 17 link to page 22 link to page 22 Precision-Guided Munitions: Background and Issues for Congress

Table 4. AGM-169 JAGM Requested and Programmed Procurement in the FYDP

FY2020
FY2021a
FY2022b
FY2023b
FY2024b
FY2025b
Total
Cost
$285.02
$262.78
$215.87
$289.57
$286.32
$285.40
$1,624.96
($mil ions)
Quantity
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. 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.
AGM-158A/B Joint Air-to-Surface Strike Missile (JASSM) and AGM-158C
Long-Range Anti-Ship Missile (LRASM)
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.56 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 The
AGM-158A JASSM has a stated range of more than 200 nautical miles.58 Initial operating
capability was declared in 2005 (see Figure 14). AGM-158As have been exported to Australia,
Finland, and Poland.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.60 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.61 The range of the JASSM-ER increased from more than 200 nautical miles to 500
nautical miles.62 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.63 The Air Force originally planned to procure 2,866 JASSMs and JASSM-
ERs, but it has since changed the requirement to 7,200 missiles;64as of 2019 the Air Force has

56 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
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 2016.65 The Air Force announced plans in
September 2019 to increase JASSM production to a maximum rate of 550 missiles per year.66 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.67 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
Flight testing for LRASM began in 2012 on board a B-1B, and the missile was tested on an F/A-
18E/F Super Hornet. LRASM uses a combination of passive radio-frequency sensors, and electro-
optical/infrared seekers for terminal guidance.69 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

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.
Congressional Research Service

17

Precision-Guided Munitions: Background and Issues for Congress

Figure 13. AGM-158 Attached to an F/A-18D Hornet

Source: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:F-18D_Hornet_(HN-466)Tour_de_Sky_2014-08-
09_06_JDAM_AGM-154.JPG.
Note: JDAM precision bomb and AGM-154C Joint Standoff Weapon glide bomb under the left wing of Finnish
air force F-18D Hornet fighter (HN-466) on ground display at Oulu Airport at Tour de Sky 2014 air show.
Figure 14. JASSM in Flight

Source: https://janes.ihs.com/Janes/Display/jalw3784-jalw.
Note: A JASSM hit its target during 2009 Lot 7 reliability trials (Lockheed Martin).
Congressional Research Service

18

link to page 23 link to page 17 link to page 17 link to page 17 link to page 17 link to page 17 link to page 24 Precision-Guided Munitions: Background and Issues for Congress

The JASSM-ER and the LRASM are produced in the same facility.71 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.72 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

FY2020
FY2021a
FY2022b
FY2023b
FY2024b
FY2025b
Total
JASSM Cost
($mil ions)
$483.43
$505.95
$750.65
$758.29
$758.40
$761.89
$4,018.60
JASSM
Quantity
390
400
512
516
520
509
2,847
LRASM Cost
($mil ions)
$72.54
$188.65
$164.85
$329.50
$343.45
$161.37
$1,260.35
LRASM
17
53
48
92
100
46
356
Quantity
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. Denotes the Administration’s request.
b. Denotes programmed funding and quantities.
AGM-88E Advanced Anti-Radiation Guided Missile (AARGM)
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.73 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
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-
16C/D Falcon, and the F-35 Lightning II.

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.
Congressional Research Service

19

link to page 24 link to page 17 link to page 17 link to page 17 link to page 17 link to page 17

Precision-Guided Munitions: Background and Issues for Congress

Figure 15. Model of an AGM-88E ARRGM

Source: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:AGM-88E_AARGM_mockup.jpg.
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 FY2020.75 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 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
Table 6. ARRGM Requested and Programmed Procurement in the FYDP

FY2020
FY2021a
FY2022b
FY2023b
FY2024b
FY2025b
Total
Cost
$183.74
$147.57
$128.22
$198.92
$237.40
$270.72
$1,166.56
($mil ions)
AARGM
—
24
32
70
109
140
375
Quantity
Source: U.S. Navy FY2021 Weapons Procurement Line Item 2327 HARM Mods.
a. Denotes the Administration’s request.
b. Denotes programmed funding and quantities.

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 See Department of Defense Budget FY2018 P-1 Procurement budget requests, at https://comptroller.defense.gov/
Budget-Materials/.
77 IHS Janes “AGM-88E Advanced Anti-Radiation Guided Missile (AARGM),” July 31, 2019, at https://janes.ihs.com/
Janes/Display/jalw3723-jalw.
Congressional Research Service

20

link to page 25 link to page 26

Precision-Guided Munitions: Background and Issues for Congress

Ground-Launched Guided Munitions
Guided Multiple Launch Rocket System (GMLRS)
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.78 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
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.80 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).81 See Table 7 for an overview of the
current DOD request for GMLRS.
Figure 16. GMLRS Launching

Source: https://www.lockheedmartin.com/en-us/products/guided-mlrs-unitary-rocket.html.

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 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_.
Congressional Research Service

21

link to page 17 link to page 17 link to page 17 link to page 17 link to page 17 link to page 26

Precision-Guided Munitions: Background and Issues for Congress

Table 7. GMLRS Requested and Programmed Procurement in the FYDP

FY2020
FY2021a
FY2022b
FY2023b
FY2024b
FY2025b
Total
Cost
$1,221.17
$1,128.32
$869.60
$1,092.94
$1,100.36
$1,082.83
$6,495.21
($mil ions)
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
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.
Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS)
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.82 ATAMCS underwent a
second upgrade in 1991, which allowed ATACMS warheads to seek and attack armored targets.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.84 The Army
has stated that it intends to retire the ATACMS and replace it with the new Precision Strike
Missile.
Figure 17. ATACMS Long-Range Precision Tactical Missile System

Source: https://www.lockheedmartin.com/content/dam/lockheed-martin/mfc/pc/army-tacticle-missile-system-
block-ia-unitary-atacms/mfc-atacms-block-1a-unitary-pc.pdf.

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 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/.
Congressional Research Service

22

link to page 27 link to page 17 link to page 17 link to page 17 link to page 17 link to page 17 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;85 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
Table 8. ATACMS Requested and Programmed Procurement in the FYDP

FY2020
FY2021a
FY2022b
FY2023b
FY2024b
FY2025b
Total
Cost
($mil ions)
$300.78
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$300.78
Quantity
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.
Precision Strike Missile (PrSM)
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.87 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 2019.88 In its second test in March 2019, the Army successfully tested the PrSMs
short-range capabilities.

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 U.S. Army Acquisition Support Center “Precision Strike Missile Fact Sheet,” at https://asc.army.mil/web/portfolio-
item/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/.
Congressional Research Service

23

link to page 17 link to page 17 link to page 17 link to page 17 link to page 17 link to page 29

Precision-Guided Munitions: Background and Issues for Congress

Figure 18. Notional Design of PrSM

Source: https://www.janes.com/article/83990/us-army-s-precision-strike-missile-moves-ahead-as-us-russia-inf-
treaty-falters.
Table 9. PrSM Requested and Programmed Procurement

FY2020
FY2021a
FY2022b
FY2023b
FY2024b
FY2025b
Total
Cost
$49.94
$168.42
$210.06
$335.09
$309.91
$49.94
$1,073.41
($mil ions)
Quantity
—
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.
Naval Precision-Guided Munitions
Tomahawk Cruise Missile
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,89 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.90 The first operational use of the Tomahawk

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/
Congressional Research Service

24

link to page 30

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.91 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.
Notes: “A Tactical ‘Tomahawk’ Block IV cruise missile conducts a control ed flight test over the Naval Air
Systems Command western test range complex in southern California. During the second such test flight, the
missile successful y completed a vertical underwater launch, flew a ful y guided 780-mile course, and impacted a
designated target structure as planned.” (U.S. Navy photo.)
From FY1998 through FY2018, the Navy spent $5.87 billion on 4,984 Tomahawk cruise
missiles.92 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-FY2024.93 The Navy projects requesting $819 million for
additional procurement appropriations.94 (See Table 10 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

link to page 17 link to page 17 link to page 17 link to page 17 link to page 17 link to page 31 link to page 30 link to page 17 link to page 17 link to page 17 link to page 17 link to page 17 Precision-Guided Munitions: Background and Issues for Congress

Table 10. Tomahawk Missile Requested and Programmed Procurement in the FYDP

FY2020
FY2021a
FY2022b
FY2023b
FY2024b
FY2025b
Total
Cost
$386.16
$277.69
$5.03
$5.02
$5.06
$5.36
$684.33
($mil ions)
Quantity
90
155
—
—
—
—
245
Source: U.S. Navy FY2021 Weapons Procurement Line Item 2101 Tomahawk.
a. Denotes the Administration’s request.
b. Denotes programmed funding and quantities.
Standard Missile-6 (SM-6)
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 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.96 SM-6 entered low-rate initial production in FY2009 and full rate production in
FY2013.97
The SM-6 is funded under the Navy’s procurement line item 2234 Standard Missile.98 According
to the latest Selected Acquisition Reports, DOD increased the requirement for SM-6 missiles
from 1,800 to 2,331.99 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 Table 11 provides an overview of the current DOD request for SM-6
missiles.
Table 11. SM-6 Requested and Programmed Procurement in the FYDP

FY2020
FY2021a
FY2022b
FY2023b
FY2024b
FY2025b
Total
Cost
$488.31
$539.83
$625.14
$600.76
$905.19
$840.14
$3,999.37
($mil ions)
Quantity
125
125
132
135
200
183
900
Source: U.S. Navy FY2021 Weapons Procurement Line Item 2234 Standard Missile.

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.
Congressional Research Service

26

link to page 32 link to page 32 link to page 33

Precision-Guided Munitions: Background and Issues for Congress

a. Denotes the Administration’s request.
b. Denotes programmed funding and quantities.
Figure 20. SM-6 Launching from a Ship

Source: https://www.raytheon.com/news/feature/sm-6_anti-surface_warfare.
Naval Strike Missile (NSM)
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 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 airframe materials and missile shape are
intended to minimise its infrared (IR) and radar signatures and radar cross section.”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
The Navy began procuring the NSM in FY2019 under the Littoral Combat Ship Over-the-
Horizon 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

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 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-to-
chinas-backyard/.
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
Figure 21. Naval Strike Missile in Flight

Source: https://www.kongsberg.com/news-and-media/news-archive/2019/raytheon-providing-us-marines-with-
naval-strike-missile/.
Figure 22. Illustration of Naval Strike Missile with Attributes

Source: https://www.quora.com/Is-it-possible-to-have-a-stealthy-hypersonic-scramjet-or-does-the-geometry-of-
the-air-intake-have-a-high-radar-cross-section.

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.
Congressional Research Service

28

link to page 17 link to page 17 link to page 17 link to page 17 link to page 17 Precision-Guided Munitions: Background and Issues for Congress

Table 12. Naval Strike Missile Requested and Programmed Procurement in the
FYDP

FY2020
FY2021a
FY2022b
FY2023b
FY2024b
FY2025b
Total
Cost
$38.14
$32.91
$60.12
$74.30
$80.77
$79.78
$366.01
($mil ions)
Quantity
18
15
34
44
48
48
207
Source: U.S. Navy FY2021 Weapons Procurement Line Item 2292 LCS OTH Missile.
a. Denotes the Administration’s request.
b. Denotes programmed funding and quantities.
Potential Issues for Congress
 Planned procurement quantities and stockpile assessment. One potential issue
for Congress is whether DOD’s desired quantities of standoff munitions are
appropriate. Current operations have demonstrated a large demand for all types
of PGMs. A potential high-intensity conflict would potentially require large
stockpiles of all types of weapons.105 Several of these types of munitions—
particularly JASSM, LRASM, and AARGM—are being procured in relatively
small quantities, given their potential use rates in a high-intensity conflict
scenario, along with the time it would take for replacement spent munitions once
initial inventories are exhausted. A related issue is whether DOD has adequately
assessed the sufficiency of existing and planned PGM stockpiles, particularly in
light of recent use rates for such weapons. Congress has from time to time
required DOD to assess munitions requirements, as well as to report on
combatant command munitions requirements. More recently, Congress required
DOD to provide an annual report on the munitions inventory, along with an
unconstrained assessment of munitions requirements.106
 Defense industrial base production capacity. Another potential issue for
Congress concerns the defense industrial base’s capacity for building PGMs,
particularly for meeting increased demands for such weapons during an
extended-duration, high-intensity conflict. The question is part of a larger issue of
whether various parts of the U.S. defense industrial base are adequate, in an era
of renewed great power competition, to meet potential wartime mobilization
demands.107
 Supply chain security. Another potential issue for Congress concerns supply
chain security, meaning whether U.S. PGMs incorporate components, materials,
or software of foreign origin. Supply chain security could affect wartime
reliability of these weapons as well as the ability of the U.S. industrial base to

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.
Congressional Research Service

29

Precision-Guided Munitions: Background and Issues for Congress

build replacement PGMs in a timely manner during an extended-duration, high-
intensity conflict.
 Development timelines. Congress may be concerned about the development
timeline of PGMs compared with development timelines of adversary A2/AD
capabilities. China and Russia have developed sophisticated systems over the
past 10 years, while DOD has developed relatively few systems. Some analysts
argue that these systems can exceed DOD munitions capabilities (such as range
and speed).108 Can and, if so, should DOD develop new systems and at a pace
that can match or exceed that of Chinese or Russian weapons systems?
 Affordability and cost-effectiveness. Congress may also be concerned about the
affordability of DOD’s plans for procuring various PGMs in large numbers, and
the cost-effectiveness of PGMs relative to other potential means of
accomplishing certain DOD missions, particularly in a context of finite DOD
resources and competing DOD program priorities. Another aspect of cost-
effectiveness concerns the cost of the weapon compared to the cost of a target.
For instance, in 2017 a U.S. ally used a $3 million Patriot missile to engage a
$300 quadcopter drone.109
 Emerging factors that may affect PGM programs. Another potential issue for
Congress is how DOD’s programs for developing and procuring PGMs might be
affected by emerging factors such as
 the U.S. withdrawal from the Intermediate Nuclear Force (INF) treaty;110
 new U.S. military operational concepts for countering Chinese A2/AD forces
in the Indo-Pacific region, such as the Army’s new Multi-Domain Operations
(MDO) operational concept and the Marine Corps’ new Expeditionary
Advanced Base Operations (EABO) concept, both of which possibly feature
the potential use of such weapons from island locations in the Pacific as a
way of countering China’s A2/AD forces; and
 emerging technologies such as hypersonics and artificial intelligence (AI).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
Table A-1. PGM Procurement Cost and Quantities, by Service (FY1998-FY2009)
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
$499.09
$594.22
$564.66
$546.27
$388.54
$625.28
$256.99
$499.74
$393.67
$255.00
$749.66
$691.42

($m FY2021)

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
$73.41
$118.43
$277.70
$294.53
$488.63
$756.82
$733.10
$948.41
$534.11
$771.98
$547.28
$678.03

($m FY2021)

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
$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

($m FY2021)

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://comptrol er.defense.gov/Budget-Materials/, Department of Defense
National Defense Budget Estimate for FY2021 pp. 60-61, at https://comptrol er.defense.gov/Portals/45/Documents/defbudget/fy2021/FY21_Green_Book.pdf, Air Force
FY2021 Missile procurement budget justifications; Army FY2021 Missile procurement budget justifications; Navy FY2021 Weapons procurement budget justifications.

CRS-31

Table A-2. PGM Procurement Cost and Quantities, by Service (FY2010-FY2021)
Service

FY2010
FY2011
FY2012
FY2013
FY2014
FY2015
FY2016
FY2017
FY2018
FY2019
FY2020
FY2021*
Army
Nominal Cost ($m)
$580.41
$486.71
$442.13
$240.23
$382.52
$163.73
$365.12
$968.50

$1,568.00
$1,639.33 $1,425.64 $2,102.03
Constant Cost

$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 $1,568.00
($m FY2021)

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
Air Force
Nominal Cost ($m)
$471.19
$748.58
$484.97
$433.86
$587.13
$968.54

$1,523.11
$1,792.59 $1,611.86 $2,243.54 $2,155.82 $2,283.85
Constant Cost

$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 $1,523.11
($m FY2021)

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
Navy
Nominal Cost ($m)
$435.01
$775.85
$410.87
$463.72
$428.87
$423.95
$323.11
$562.42
$676.27
$713.27
$916.29
$992.15
Constant Cost

$526.65
$923.96
$481.90
$536.34
$489.01
$476.13
$356.60
$608.75
$717.52
$742.07
$934.61
$992.15
($m FY2021)

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 FY2000-2021 P-1 Procurement budget requests, at https://comptrol er.defense.gov/Budget-Materials/, Department of Defense
National Defense Budget Estimate for FY2021 pp. 60-61, at https://comptrol er.defense.gov/Portals/45/Documents/defbudget/fy2021/FY21_Green_Book.pdf, Air Force
FY2021 Missile procurement budget justifications; Army FY2021 Missile procurement budget justifications; Navy FY2021 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

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
$-
$-
$-
$128.83
$6.97
$5.43
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$50.44

($m FY2021)

Quantity
0
0
0
270
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
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
$135.65
$134.96
$133.27
$137.51
$49.76
$191.40
$78.20
$212.70
$134.50
$96.66
$105.74
$-

($m FY2021)

Quantity
109
96
110
100
24
156
60
156
98
18
84
0
GMLRS
Nominal Cost ($m)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$130.50
$106.80
$111.30
$121.60
$125.00
$263.71
$309.21
Constant Cost
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$181.65
$144.99
$147.22
$157.11
$158.35
$328.90
$380.19

($m FY2021)

Quantity
0
0
0
0
0
822
786
954
984
925
2070
2652
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
$393.35
$459.26
$460.59
$408.76
$338.78
$266.01
$62.58
$268.25
$271.45
$309.73
$483.78
$594.52

($m FY2021)

Quantity
1100
2000
2425
2200
2200
137
172
1020
1423
2958
4611
5584
JAGM
Nominal Cost ($m)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
Constant Cost
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-

($m FY2021)

Quantity
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
JASSM
Nominal Cost ($m)
$-
$-
$-
$0.20
$42.70
$53.80
$100.90
$139.20
$98.70
$156.50
$160.04
$139.70
Constant Cost
$-
$-
$-
$0.29
$60.71
$74.89
$136.98
$184.13
$127.52
$198.25
$199.60
$171.77

($m FY2021)
CRS-33

Program

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
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
$97.13
$174.74
$396.89
$394.30
$856.98

$935.92
$880.29
$395.48
$355.59
$208.41
$215.28

($m FY2021)
$1,047.19

Quantity
2202
4523
10300
11229
28945
35620
32666
29756
11605
10585
5724
6242
LRASM
Nominal Cost ($m)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
Constant Cost
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-

($m FY2021)

Quantity
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
SDB
Nominal Cost ($m)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$29.10
$52.20
$114.70
$94.65
$132.82
Constant Cost
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$38.49
$67.44
$145.30
$118.05
$163.31

($m FY2021)

Quantity
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
199
567
2030
1395
2612
SDB II
Nominal Cost ($m)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
Constant Cost
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-

($m FY2021)

Quantity
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
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
$39.73
$654.25
$-
$-
$103.78
$608.44
$477.87
$366.67
$481.91
$447.18
$593.45
$344.60

($m FY2021)

Quantity
0
624
0
0
25
350
322
298
408
355
496
207
Source: Department of Defense Budget FY2000-2021 P-1 Procurement budget requests, at https://comptrol er.defense.gov/Budget-Materials/, Department of Defense
National Defense Budget Estimate for FY2021 pp. 60-61, at https://comptrol er.defense.gov/Portals/45/Documents/defbudget/fy2021/FY21_Green_Book.pdf, Air Force
FY2021 Missile procurement budget justifications; Army FY2021 Missile procurement budget justifications; Navy FY2021 Weapons procurement budget justifications.

CRS-34

Table B-2. PGM Procurement Cost and Quantities, by Program (FY2010-FY2021)
Program

FY2010
FY2011
FY2012
FY2013
FY2014
FY2015
FY2016
FY2017
FY2018
FY2019
FY2020
FY2021*
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
$147.57
Constant Cost
$57.90
$61.82
$89.80
$97.02
$107.25
$119.60
$133.32
$194.88
$194.55
$187.15
$187.41
$147.57

($m FY2021)

Quantity
33
44
72
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
24
ATACMS
Nominal Cost ($m)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$35.60
$-
$-
$-

$-
$300.78
$-
Constant Cost
$-
$-
$-
$-
$40.59
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$306.80
$-

($m FY2021)

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

$975.51

$1,128.32
GMLRS
Nominal Cost ($m)
$1,027.97
$1,221.17
Constant Cost
$427.74
$315.05
$390.77
$247.85
$311.32
$142.80
$277.08
$442.52

$1,128.32

($m FY2021)
$1,090.68 $1,014.88 $1,245.58

Quantity
3228
2592
3194
1608
2166
768
1866
3360
6528
7668
8523
7360
Hellfire
Nominal Cost ($m)
$422.45
$439.99
$221.42
$146.08
$166.17
$395.94
$784.04
$681.68
$821.05
$460.97
$726.71
$516.61
Constant Cost
$511.44
$523.99
$259.70
$168.96
$189.47
$444.67
$865.29
$737.83
$871.14
$479.58
$741.23
$516.61

($m FY2021)

Quantity
4684
2970
2162
1315
1143
3405
6639
6797
10501
5161
8790
8150
JAGM
Nominal Cost ($m)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$27.74
$83.83
$182.22
$280.57
$285.02
$262.78
Constant Cost
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$30.61
$90.74
$193.34
$291.90
$290.72
$262.78

($m FY2021)

Quantity
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
469
899
796
854
860
JASSM
Nominal Cost ($m)
$52.52
$168.23
$236.19
$230.19
$271.15
$329.16
$425.58
$431.65
$433.12
$602.83
$483.43
$505.95
Constant Cost
$63.58
$200.35
$277.03
$266.24
$309.18
$369.67
$469.68
$467.20
$459.54
$627.16
$493.09
$505.95

($m FY2021)

Quantity
0
171
202
233
187
240
340
360
360
360
390
400
CRS-35

Program

FY2010
FY2011
FY2012
FY2013
FY2014
FY2015
FY2016
FY2017
FY2018
FY2019
FY2020
FY2021*
JDAM
Nominal Cost ($m)
$192.32
$346.38
$127.25
$144.61
$250.47
$228.44
$533.98
$682.11

$524.87
$1,149.39 $1,103.57 $1,039.47
Constant Cost
$232.83
$412.50
$149.25
$167.26
$285.60
$256.56
$589.31
$738.30

$524.87

($m FY2021)
$1,219.51 $1,148.11 $1,060.25

Quantity
7517
13061
4259
4678
10415
8786
22478
28596
42864
39614
28388
20338
LRASM
Nominal Cost ($m)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$125.75
$169.46
$174.18
$72.54
$188.65
Constant Cost
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$136.11
$179.80
$181.21
$73.99
$188.65

($m FY2021)

Quantity
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
36
50
52
17
53
SDB
Nominal Cost ($m)
$141.69
$119.22
$20.14
$1.97
$-
$51.30
$135.12
$251.36
$384.25
$209.33
$273.29
$95.83
Constant Cost
$171.54
$141.98
$23.62
$2.28
$-
$57.61
$149.12
$272.07
$407.69
$217.78
$278.75
$95.83

($m FY2021)

Quantity
2694
2785
150
0
0
443
3494
4507
7471
5743
7078
2462
SDB II
Nominal Cost ($m)
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$20.97
$189.63
$291.73
$352.14
Constant Cost
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$22.25
$197.29
$297.56
$352.14

($m FY2021)

Quantity
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
90
1260
1687
1490
Tomahawk
Nominal Cost ($m)
$276.50
$596.67
$297.61
$293.58
$307.46
$317.46
$202.31
$297.51
$187.35
$98.57
$386.16
$277.69
Constant Cost
$334.74
$710.58
$349.06
$339.56
$350.58
$356.53
$223.28
$322.01
$198.78
$102.55
$393.88
$277.69

($m FY2021)

Quantity
196
417
196
196
206
243
149
196
100
0
90
155
Source: Department of Defense Budget FY2000-2021 P-1 Procurement budget requests, at https://comptrol er.defense.gov/Budget-Materials/, Department of Defense
National Defense Budget Estimate for FY2021 pp. 60-61, at https://comptrol er.defense.gov/Portals/45/Documents/defbudget/fy2021/FY21_Green_Book.pdf,, Air Force
FY2021 Missile procurement budget justifications; Army FY2021 Missile procurement budget justifications; Navy FY2021 Weapons procurement budget justifications.
CRS-36

Precision-Guided Munitions: Background and Issues for Congress

Author Information

John R. Hoehn
Samuel D. Ryder
Analyst in Military Capabilities and Programs
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