- 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 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, SLAM-ER.
Design
SLAM shares its basic design with AGM-84 Harpoon. Externally, it could be distinguished by longer body and seeker head.
Propulsion
SLAM 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
Seeker is a key element that differs from Harpoon. The WGU-10/B, which was designed for common imaging infrared seeker for many guided weapons like AGM-65D, GBU-15 and AGM-130, is also used on SLAM.
Warhead
SLAM and Harpoon shares 488 lb (221 kg) WDU-18/B penetrating blast-fragmentation warhead, containing 215 lb (97.5 kg) of Destex.
Guidance
SLAM 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.
If the missile is launched beyond the seeker range, the GPS-aided INS guides missile to the target. When the target comes within seeker’s field of view, video image is transmitted via datalink to the launch aircraft. Then the pilot may correct missile’s aiming point and disengage.
Specifications
Length: 178 in (452.1 cm)
Diameter: 13.5 in (34.3 cm)
Wingspan: 36 in (91.4 cm)
Weight: 1,366 lb (620 kg)
Wing area: 253.13 in² (1,633 cm²)
Control surface area: 98.89 in² (638 cm²)
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: 113.24 lb (51.4 kg)
Warhead: WDU-18/B
- Explosive type: Destex
- Explosive mass: 215 lb (97.5 kg)
- Warhead type: SAP-HE
Seeker: WGU-10/B
Guidance: IR+GNSS
Maximum cruise speed: Mach 0.85
Range: 50 NM (93 km)
Sources
- NAVAIR 00-110AGM-1 Standard Aircraft Characteristics Navy Model AGM-84A Aircraft. NAVAIR, 1974, pp. 3-6
- NAVEDTRA 14097 Fire Controlman Supervisor, pp. 2-15
- NAVEDTRA 14313 Aviation Ordnanceman. NAS Pensacola, FL: NETPDC, 2001, pp. 3-10
- AP 3656H Royal Air Force Manual of Flying: Volume H, Aircraft Weapons Employment. Ministry of Defence, 1970
- 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
- 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
- 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
- Department of Defense Index of Specifications and Standards: Numerical Listing Part II. Philadelphia, PA: DODISS, 2005, pp. 231
- Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS) Modification (MOD)
- Weapons Systems Book. PEO Missiles and Space, 2012, pp. 119-120
- 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
- Naval Aviation News March-April 1989. Washington, D.C.: Department of the Navy, pp. 31
- Naval Aviation News May-June 1989 Volume 71, No. 4. Washington, D.C.: Department of the Navy, 1989, pp. 10
- Surface Warfare November/December 1986 Vol. 11, No.6. Washington D.C.: Department of the Navy, 1986, pp. 10
- 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
- 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
- Lon Nordeen, Harpoon Missile Vs Surface Ships: US Navy, Libya and Iran, 1986-88. Oxford, United Kingdom: Osprey Publishing, 2024, pp. 13
- Design Characteristics of United States: Cruise Missiles. Monterey, CA: MIIS, 2013
- 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
- Tom Clancy, Submarine: A Guided Tour Inside a Nuclear Warship. New York: Berkley Books, 2003, pp. 115
- Naval Surface Combatants in the 1990s: Prospects and Possibilities. Washington D.C.: Congressional Budget Office, 1981, pp. 20
- 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
- Tom Clancy, Fighter Wing: A Guided Tour of an Air Force Combat Wing. New York: Berkley Books, 1995, pp. 169
- Tom Clancy, Carrier. London, United Kingdom: Penguin Books Ltd., 1999, pp. 165
- 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