- Yes
- No
History
Since 1979, air-launched harpoon become major anti-ship weaponry in carrier air wing. Though not big and fast like the Soviet one, but it was definitely an advanced and lethal missile. It soon became NATO’s standard ASM.
Harpoon’s success led to another program. After the Operation El Dorado Canyon, U.S. Navy realized they lacked a air-to-ground missile capable of strike high-value, near-shore targets. As an interim solution, development of the Standoff Land Attack Missile is initiated in 1987.
McDonnell Douglas took the easiest way: combining seeker of the AGM-65D and Walleye’s datalink into Harpoon airframe. This significantly shortened the development time and cost, and SLAM was successfully used in Operation Desert Storm.
Although there were some disappointments, it showed promise and paved the way for its successor, AGM-84H/K Standoff Land Attack Missile Expanded Response (SLAM-ER). The SLAM-ER was first fired in 1999, and achieved initial operating capability in June 2000.
As of 2025, the SLAM-ER is still the U.S. Navy’s primary air-to-ground cruise missile.
Design
SLAM-ER is a heavily modified SLAM. It is very recognizable with Harpoon and SLAM by its unique appearance.
The main difference is the wing. The SLAM-ER uses a pop-out swept wing, which extends after launch. These wings give the SLAM-ER a much longer flight range and better maneuverability than the SLAM.
Propulsion
SLAM-ER still 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.
Seeker
The SLAM-ER’s AN/DSQ-61 guidance section features new nose fairing with two-facet Germanium window, which reduces drag and radar cross section. This fairing mounts over the existing IIR seeker head.
Warhead
The SLAM-ER uses a 500 lb (226 kg) WDU-40/B warhead. This is derived from the Tomahawk, featuring reduced explosive filling to about 166 lb (75.2 kg) and specifically shaped titanium case for more than twice of penetrating capability, compared to the WDU-18/B.
Guidance
The SLAM-ER utilizes GPS-aided inertial navigation for midcourse guidance. During the terminal guidance, IIR seeker could target stationary and moving ground objects. However the SLAM’s maximum range is much longer than seeker’s acquisition range, so it requires datalink to the launch aircraft for stand-off attack.
Also the SLAM-ER has an adaptive terrain following capabilities that SLAM did not have. So the missile could fly close to the ground for enhanced survivability, while avoiding obstacles in its path.
In-Game Considerations
While this missile has massive range compared to the current in-game anti-air missiles, it should be noted that there are no datalinks for in-game air-to-ground missiles. So the effective firing range against the ground vehicles will be limited to the lock-on distance, about 10 km for target tracking and 20 km for point tracking.
And this is also the practical range of the Kh-38. One difference with the Kh-38 is that it supports GPS/INS guidance, allowing it to launched at specific points on the map even outside of lock-on range. However the size of the ground battle maps are too small to utilize the full range of the SLAM-ER, and it cannot engage against moving targets at such case.
Since the SLAM-ER is significantly slower than the Kh-38 and will be employed in less quantities (2-4 per aircraft), I would cautiously speculate that it will not be a meta-changing weapon. Things like the terrain following capability could be a significant variable, but that is up to the developers to decide whether or not to implement it.
Specifications
Length: 172 in (4.52 m)
Diameter: 13.5 in (34.3 cm)
Wingspan: 7.2 ft (2.19 m)
Weight: 1,500 lb (680 kg)
Propulsion: J402-CA-400
- Thrust: 600-660 lbf (2.67-2.94 kN)
- Thrust specific fuel consumption: 1.2-1.58 lb/lbf·h (0.12-0.16 kg/N·h)
Fuel capacity: 132 lb (59.8 kg)
Warhead: WDU-40/B
- Overall mass: 500 lb (226.7 kg)
- Explosive mass: 166.83 lb (75.67 kg)
- Warhead type: SAP-HE
Guidance: IR+GNSS
Maximum cruise speed: Mach 0.85
Range: 150 NM (278 km)
Sources
- NAVAIR 00-110AGM-1 Standard Aircraft Characteristics Navy Model AGM-84A Aircraft. NAVAIR, 1974, pp. 3-6
- NAVEDTRA 14313 Aviation Ordnanceman. NAS Pensacola, FL: NETPDC, 2001, pp. 3-10
- 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
- Hazard Classification of United States Military Explosives and Munitions. McAlester, OK: U.S. Army Defense Ammunition Center Logistics Review and Technical Assistance Office, 2021, pp. 200-201
- All Hands September 1983. Washington, D.C.: Bureau of Naval Personnel, 1983, pp. 41
- Environmental Assessment: Nonwarhead Standoff Land Attack Missile (SLAM) and Future Model SLAM Firings. Point Mugu: NAWCWD Point Mugu Public Affairs, 1998, pp. 3-5
- 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
- AGM-84E SLAM. Forecast International, 2011, pp. 2-4
- William E. Kidd, “Turbine Powerplants for Missiles - Cost Improvement Requirements,” in SAE Technical Paper 730364, 1973, pp. 1251
- 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
- Ken Perkins, Weapons and Warfare: Conventional Weapons and Their Roles in Battle. Brassey’s, 1987, pp. 38
- “Gas Turbine Engines,” in Aviation Week & Space Technology January 26, 2009. New York: AWST, 2009
- Wolfram F. Hanrieder, Words and Arms: A Dictionary of Security and Defense Terms. Milton Park, United Kingdom: Taylor & Francis, 2019
- Mi Seitelman, Seapower: Modern Naval Technology of The USA And Europe. Osceola: Motorbooks Intl., 1988, pp. 12
- Mark Hewish, “Harpoon,” in Proceedings, Volume 103/2/888. Annapolis: USNI, 1977
- Design Characteristics of United States: Cruise Missiles. Monterey, CA: MIIS, 2013
- Carlo Kopp, “Cruise Missile Options for Australia,” Australian Aviation December 2004. North Sydney, Australia: Australian Aviation, 2004, pp. 36
- Vision, Presence, Power: A Program Guide to the U.S. Navy. Arlington County, VA: Department of the Navy, 2004, pp. 52-53
- George M. Siouris, Missile Guidance and Control Systems. New York: Springer, 2006, pp. 523
- Afghanistan Ordnance Identification Guide. Indian Head, MD: Naval Explosive Ordnance Disposal Technology Division, 2004, pp. 127
- Department of the Navy 1997 Posture Statement. Washington D.C.: Department of the Navy, 1997, pp. 69
- Standoff Land Attack Missile Expanded Response: Flexible Targeting Solution. Boeing
- SLAM ER Continues to Demonstrate Expanded Response. Boeing
- U.S. Navy Conducts Live Warhead Firing of Boeing SLAM ER. Boeing
- SLAM-ER
- John Martins, Realizing the Combat Power of Network Centric Operations. NAVAIR, pp.31
- Eugene L. Fleeman, Tactical Missile Design. Reston, VA: AIAA, 2001, pp.30
- http://disf.kr/a01/32959