AGM-84 Harpoon: Technical data and discussion




All AGM-84 variants uses Teledyne CAE J402-CA-400 turbojet engine for propulsion. It weighs 100 lb (45.4 kg) and provides 600-660 lbf (2.67-2.94 kN) of thrust[1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6]. Thrust specific fuel consumption is 1.2-1.58 lb/(h·lbf)[1, 2, 3, 5].

Early Harpoons used 100 lb (45.4 kg) of JP-5 fuel for propulsion[3, 6, 7, 8]. It was changed to denser JP-10 in AGM-84D, results in doubled range[6, 9, 10, 11, 12]. For the AGM-84H/K SLAM-ER, the fuel capacity has been increased to 132 lb (59.8 kg)[13].

Harpoon and AGM-84E SLAM uses 488 lb (221 kg) WDU-18/B penetrating blast-fragmentation warhead containing 215 lb (97.5 kg) of Destex[14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20].

SLAM-ER uses 500 lb (226 kg) WDU-40/B penetrating blast-fragmentation warhead[14, 21, 22, 23, 24]. This new warhead features reduced explosive filling to 166 lb (75.2 kg) and a specifically shaped titanium case for more than twice of penetrating capability[14, 23, 25].

Harpoon uses Texas Instruments AN/DSQ-28 guidance section with active radar seeker for terminal guidance[26, 27, 28, 29]. The seeker provides effective target acquisition and tracking up to sea state 5[30].


SLAM uses WGU-10/B imaging infrared seeker[16, 19, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35]. This was designed for common IIR seeker to many guided weapons like AGM-65D, GBU-15 and AGM-130[32].


Harpoon rely on inertial navigation during midcourse guidance[36, 37, 38]. When the radar seeker finds a target, the missile descents to a sea-skimming altitude of 5-20 ft (1.5-6 m)[36, 37, 38, 39].

There are two terminal attack mode: pop-up and sea-skimming. Block 1 AGM-84A is pop-up only, Block 1B AGM-84C is sea-skimming only, and Block 1C AGM-84D is selectable between the two[9, 11, 12, 40, 41].

For SLAM, midcourse guidance is updated to the GPS-aided inertial navigation[16, 34, 35]. Thanks to the imaging infrared seeker from AGM-65D, it can be used against ground targets. However the SLAM’s maximum range is much longer than seeker’s acquisition range, it requires datalink to the launch aircraft for precision stand-off attack.

SLAM-ER presents better guidance, including terrain following capability and automatic target recognition feature[16, 34, 42].

AGM-84A Harpoon Block 1


Length: 151 in (3.84 m)[7, 43, 44]
Diameter: 13.5 in (34.3 cm)[6, 7, 43, 44]
Wingspan: 3 ft (91.4 cm)[44]
Weight: 1,160 lb (526 kg)[7, 43]
Propulsion: J402-CA-400
Fuel capacity: 100 lb (45.4 kg)
Warhead: WDU-18/B
Guidance: inertial navigation + active radar homing
Maximum speed: Mach 0.85[6, 8]
Range: 60 NM (111 km)

Baseline model. Utilizes pop-up terminal attack mode.

AGM-84C Harpoon Block 1B

Upgraded version featuring lower cruising altitude.

Removed pop-up terminal attack mode for low altitude defense penetration.

AGM-84D Harpoon Block 1C


Length: 151 in (3.84 m)
Diameter: 13.5 in (34.3 cm)
Wingspan: 3 ft (91.4 cm)
Weight: 1,200 lb (544 kg)[45]
Propulsion: J402-CA-400
Fuel capacity: 100 lb (45.4 kg)
Warhead: WDU-18/B
Guidance: inertial navigation + active radar homing
Maximum speed: Mach 0.85
Range: 120 NM (222 km)

Fuel has been replaced from JP-5 to JP-10, doubling range.

Terminal attack mode is selectable between pop-up and sea-skimming.

AGM-84E Standoff Land Attack Missile


Length: 178 in (4.52 m)[13, 19, 43]
Diameter: 13.5 in (34.3 cm)
Wingspan: 3 ft (91.4 cm)
Weight: 1,366 lb (620 kg)[13, 19]
Propulsion: J402-CA-400
Fuel capacity: 100 lb (45.4 kg)
Warhead: WDU-18/B
Guidance: GPS-aided intertial navigation + datalink + imaging infrared homing
Maximum speed: Mach 0.85
Range: 50 NM (93 km)

Air-to-ground cruise missile variant, derived from AGM-84A[46].

Utilized WGU-10/B seeker from AGM-65, AN/AWW-13 datalink from AGM-62.

AGM-84H/K Standoff Land Attack Missile-Expanded Response


Length: 172 in (4.36 m)[13, 19, 22]
Diameter: 13.5 in (342.9 mm)
Wingspan: 7.2 ft (2.19 m)[19, 22]
Weight: 1,500 lb (680 kg)[13, 19, 22]
Propulsion: J402-CA-400
Fuel capacity: 132 lb (59.8 kg)
Warhead: WDU-40/B
Guidance: GPS-aided intertial navigation + datalink + imaging infrared homing
Maximum speed: Mach 0.85
Range: 150 NM (278 km)

Modified SLAM with fold-out wing, new guidance section, improved warhead.


[1] William E. Kidd, “Turbine Powerplants for Missiles - Cost Improvement Requirements,” in SAE Technical Paper 730364, 1973, pp. 1251
[2] Richard A. Leyes II and William A. Fleming, The History of North American Small Gas Turbine Aircraft Engines, 1st ed. Reston: AIAA, 1999, pp.107
[3] Ken Perkins, Weapons and Warfare: Conventional Weapons and Their Roles in Battle. Brassey’s, 1987, pp. 38
[4] “Gas Turbine Engines,” in Aviation Week & Space Technology January 26, 2009. New York: AWST, 2009
[5] Wolfram F. Hanrieder, Words and Arms: A Dictionary of Security and Defense Terms. Milton Park, United Kingdom: Taylor & Francis, 2019
[6] Mi Seitelman, Seapower: Modern Naval Technology of The USA And Europe. Osceola: Motorbooks Intl., 1988, pp. 12
[7] Fiscal Year 1978 Authorization for Military Procurement, Research and Deployment, and Active Duty, Selected Reserve, and Civilian Personnel Strengths: Hearings Before the Committee on Armed Services, United States Senate, Ninety-Fifth Congress, First Session, on S.1210. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1977, pp.4703
[8] Mark Hewish, “Harpoon,” in Proceedings, Volume 103/2/888. Annapolis: USNI, 1977
[9] Frederick E. Grosick, Patrick L. Massey and Mark W. Petersen, Harpoon Employment in Naval Antisurface Warfare (ASUW). Montgomery, AL: Air War College, 1988, pp. 33
[10] Department of Defense Authorization for Fiscal Year 1982: Hearings Before the Committee on Armed Services, United States Senate Ninety-Seventh Congress, First Session, on S.815. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1981, pp. 1514
[11] Naval Aviation News May-June 1989 Volume 71, No. 4. Washington, D.C.: Department of the Navy, 1989, pp. 10
[12] Lon Nordeen, Harpoon Missile Vs Surface Ships: US Navy, Libya and Iran, 1986-88. Oxford, United Kingdom: Osprey Publishing, 2024, pp. 13
[13] Environmental Assessment: Nonwarhead Standoff Land Attack Missile (SLAM) and Future Model SLAM Firings. Point Mugu: NAWCWD Point Mugu Public Affairs, 1998, pp. 3-5
[14] Hazard Classification of United States Military Explosives and Munitions. McAlester, OK: U.S. Army Defense Ammunition Center Logistics Review and Technical Assistance Office, 2012, pp. 140, 146
[15] Design Characteristics of United States: Cruise Missiles. Monterey, CA: MIIS, 2013
[16] Time Critical Conventional Strike From Strategic Standoff. Washington, D.C.: Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, 2009, pp. 35, 86
[17] Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS) Modification (MOD)
[18] Weapons Systems Book. PEO Missiles and Space, 2012, pp. 119-120
[19] AGM-84E SLAM. Forecast International, 2011, pp. 2-4
[20] High Expl Guided Missile Warhead
[21] Afghanistan Ordnance Identification Guide. Indian Head, MD: Naval Explosive Ordnance Disposal Technology Division, 2004, pp. 127
[22] SLAM-ER
[23] U.S. Navy Conducts Live Warhead Firing of Boeing SLAM ER. Boeing
[24] Tong Zhao, Conventional Counterforce Strike: an Option for Damage Limitation Operations Against Medium-Sized Nuclear-Armed Adversaries?. Georgia Institute of Technology, pp. 5
[25] SLAM ER Continues to Demonstrate Expanded Response. Boeing
[26] V. Saul and M. Pyrdsa, Test and Evaluation of Container Mk 619 Mod 0 for Harpoon Guidance Section AN/DSQ-28. Colts Neck, NJ: NWS Earle, 1977
[27] Department of Defense Index of Specifications and Standards: Numerical Listing Part II. Philadelphia, PA: DODISS, 2005, pp. 231
[28] Guided Missile Guidance Section
[29] Harpoon anti-ship missile
[30] Department of Defense Appropriations for 1974: Hearings Before a Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations, House of Representatives, Ninety-Third Congress, First Session. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1978, pp. 662
[31] Tom Clancy, Fighter Wing: A Guided Tour of an Air Force Combat Wing. New York: Berkley Books, 1995, pp. 169
[32] Tom Clancy, Carrier. London, United Kingdom: Penguin Books Ltd., 1999, pp. 165
[33] Carlo Kopp, “Cruise Missile Options for Australia,” Australian Aviation December 2004. North Sydney, Australia: Australian Aviation, 2004, pp. 36
[34] Vision, Presence, Power: A Program Guide to the U.S. Navy. Arlington County, VA: Department of the Navy, 2004, pp. 52-53
[35] Naval Aviation News March-April 1989. Washington, D.C.: Department of the Navy, pp. 31
[36] NAVEDTRA 14097 Fire Controlman Supervisor, pp. 2-15
[37] Tom Clancy, Submarine: A Guided Tour Inside a Nuclear Warship. New York: Berkley Books, 2003, pp. 115
[38] Naval Surface Combatants in the 1990s: Prospects and Possibilities. Washington D.C.: Congressional Budget Office, 1981, pp. 20
[39] All Hands September 1983. Washington, D.C.: Bureau of Naval Personnel, 1983, pp. 41
[40] Allen R. Bergeron and Frank E. Sloan, NAVEDTRA 10207-B Fire Control Technican G 3&2. NAS Pensacola, FL: Naval Education and Training Command, 1981, pp. 11-27, 11-28, 11-29
[41] Surface Warfare November/December 1986 Vol. 11, No.6. Washington D.C.: Department of the Navy, 1986, pp. 10
[42] Department of the Navy 1997 Posture Statement. Washington D.C.: Department of the Navy, 1997, pp. 69
[43] NAVEDTRA 14313 Aviation Ordnanceman. NAS Pensacola, FL: NETPDC, 2001, pp. 3-10
[44] Harpoon
[45] Boeing (McDonnell Douglas) AGM/RGM/UGM-84 Harpoon
[46] George M. Siouris, Missile Guidance and Control Systems. New York: Springer, 2006, pp. 523


I’ve got this;







It does have phased array antenna?

PESA and a bit later AESA etc isn’t that new.