US Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

I

ismellcopium

Junior Member
Registered Member
caudaceus said:
Military Tweet are really hyping this development. Is it that revolutionary?
Click to expand...
Tbh I really don't get the furious AIM-174 masturbation. It's too large for F-35s, F-22s or F-16s. It's supposedly intended for H-6s but YJ-12 outranges the SM-6, so I don't really see the intended idea of hitting them before launch working (let alone question of detection/cueing of those bombers at those ranges). Is a very high-cost, low quantity, improvised VLRAAM which can only be employed by 1 or 2 aircraft types really that big a deal?

To me the significance is just so the US can say we "technically" have (among the) longest range AAMs again, even it's in a relatively token quantity with significant operational restrictions.
 
Last edited:
I

ismellcopium

Junior Member
Registered Member
bd popeye said:
SM-6..really? Listen to this...

New Super Hornet Missile Breaks China's Carrier Kill Chain​

Commander Ward Carroll is a retired F-14 Tomcat RIO.
Click to expand...
So how long do you think its range is? My understanding is it's essentially same missile as naval SM-6 without booster.

And regarding my other points?

Not to minimize this missile entirely, its NIFC-CA capability certainly could help with the usability at max ranges. But I don't really see it as a massive gamechanger. How many can they realistically induct and equip fighters with in-theatre?
 
Last edited:
C

caudaceus

Senior Member
Registered Member
gelgoog said:
The missile in the picture has "INERT" written in it. This is likely just a captive carry test to see if the missile would work properly when attached to the aircraft. Probably a long way from being operational.

It is a big deal for the USN since they were outmatched by PLA aircraft with the latest long range Chinese missiles.
Click to expand...
Oh it's not even operational?
 
Sinnavuuty

Sinnavuuty

Senior Member
Registered Member
caudaceus said:
Oh it's not even operational?
Click to expand...
The USN clearly states: Operationally Deployed
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

This is a clearly interesting adaptation because it allows the USN to return the BVR capability lost after the retirement of the AIM-54 in 2004.

This AIM-174B should have a range that allows it to exceed 500 km, including against surface targets. It weighs four times more than the AIM-260 (~300 km) which has basically the same dimensions as the AIM-120D (~180 km).

It is worth noting that the SM-6 was also designed to integrate with AEGIS and other systems (NIFC-CA FTS), which means that an F-18 SH armed with the AIM-174B could fire on targets beyond its range. internal radar. Traditionally, this is the most difficult part of long-range missile launches, as the target moves quickly while the missile is in flight. With the SM-6, you can send updates mid-flight and have a higher hit chance, intercepting against short- and medium-range ballistic missiles in their terminal phase of flight, anti-ship cruise missiles, and all types of aircraft (mainly AEW, tankers and bombers).
 
TerraN_EmpirE

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
gelgoog said:
It is really funny.
Click to expand...
that aged like milk.
gelgoog said:
It is good for the US that they are developing an alternative to the AIM-260 program. But the hype in that video is just bonkers.
Click to expand...
it’s not really an alternative as although possible for Rhino Hornets potential for Eagle II and possibly Vipers. It’s too big for internal carry on F35 and F22. External carry would be an option except that means bigger RCS. Aim 260 is supposed to fit internally on F22 and F35.
ismellcopium said:
So how long do you think its range is? My understanding is it's essentially same missile as naval SM-6 without booster.
Click to expand...
Most of the energy of a SAM is spent getting to altitude. Being launched from a fighter means that it’s possible it the same or better range as the fighter acts as an additional stage. Bringing the weapon to a higher altitude and giving it additional speed to start off. So the engineers have a little bit of play for if they want to trim back on fuel for weight.
However extreme range shots are not a guarantee. As at extreme range the missile looses energy and can’t maneuver. Most missiles have a “cannot escape range” where if they engage a target it’s basically a guaranteed kill. It’s a range at which an attempt at escape would require such an extreme magnitude of acrobatics as to either break the aircraft or kill the pilot. Or use an extremely advanced decoy system.
 
G

gelgoog

Brigadier
Registered Member
Sinnavuuty said:
The USN clearly states: Operationally Deployed
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Click to expand...
The DoD also claimed the Dark Eagle was deployed to Europe. It turns out they were just trialing moving the trucks with empty missile launchers in Europe.
Had you any knowledge of how long it takes to integrate a new missile into an aircraft you wouldn't be taking their blanket statements, or possible misinterpretation by over eager journalists, as gospel.

Sinnavuuty said:
This is a clearly interesting adaptation because it allows the USN to return the BVR capability lost after the retirement of the AIM-54 in 2004.
Click to expand...
The AIM-54 had about the same range as the AIM-120D. But yes it was long range for the time it came out.

Sinnavuuty said:
This AIM-174B should have a range that allows it to exceed 500 km, including against surface targets. It weighs four times more than the AIM-260 (~300 km) which has basically the same dimensions as the AIM-120D (~180 km).
Click to expand...
An air breathing missile with the same weight as a rocket will have like twice the range. Because it does not need to carry oxidizer.
The thing is it will take a long time to get a whole new missile like the AIM-260 in service. Which is why quick solutions like the AIM-174B make sense.

Sinnavuuty said:
It is worth noting that the SM-6 was also designed to integrate with AEGIS and other systems (NIFC-CA FTS), which means that an F-18 SH armed with the AIM-174B could fire on targets beyond its range. internal radar. Traditionally, this is the most difficult part of long-range missile launches, as the target moves quickly while the missile is in flight. With the SM-6, you can send updates mid-flight and have a higher hit chance, intercepting against short- and medium-range ballistic missiles in their terminal phase of flight, anti-ship cruise missiles, and all types of aircraft (mainly AEW, tankers and bombers).
Click to expand...
All modern BVR missiles have mid course updates. And I doubt you could use the same datalink as in the SM-6 to communicate with a combat aircraft.
 
TerraN_EmpirE

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
gelgoog said:
The DoD also claimed the Dark Eagle was deployed to Europe. It turns out they were just trialing moving the trucks with empty missile launchers in Europe.
Had you any knowledge of how long it takes to integrate a new missile into an aircraft you wouldn't be taking their blanket statements, or possible misinterpretation by over eager journalists, as gospel.
Click to expand...
You have a sauce for that?
Also that sounds a lot like the Russian T14 and SU57 “deployments”.
 
Sinnavuuty

Sinnavuuty

Senior Member
Registered Member
gelgoog said:
The DoD also claimed the Dark Eagle was deployed to Europe. It turns out they were just trialing moving the trucks with empty missile launchers in Europe.
Had you any knowledge of how long it takes to integrate a new missile into an aircraft you wouldn't be taking their blanket statements, or possible misinterpretation by over eager journalists, as gospel.
Click to expand...
Being sent for testing is a very different thing from claiming to be active operationally. I'd rather take the USN's official word for it than you. Sorry!!!

As for the integration time of a new missile on the aircraft, know that this work on integrating the SM-6 in its air-launched version has been studied since 2015, there are almost 10 years between the initial developments and implementation in an operational unit, in other words, I believe that it is enough time for the USN to have carried out all the studies and tests before stating that the AIM-174B is deployed.
gelgoog said:
All modern BVR missiles have mid course updates. And I doubt you could use the same datalink as in the SM-6 to communicate with a combat aircraft.
Click to expand...
There is no point in modifying the SM-6 to be mounted on an F-18 pylone if it would not allow datalink integration with the aircraft. I would believe in this possibility more than data integration with a ship's Aegis system.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
The AIM-174B shares several features with its surface-launched counterpart, the SM-6, designed to counter long-range aerial threats and ballistic missiles in their terminal flight phase. Integrated into the Aegis Combat System, the AIM-174B could play a crucial role in networked maritime air defense, allowing engagements beyond the radar range of the launch platforms.

The operational integration of the AIM-174B not only advances the U.S. Navy's air-to-air combat capabilities but also addresses the increasing threats such as hypersonic missiles and anti-access/area denial systems. Its ability to integrate targeting data remotely makes it a strategic complement to stealth aircraft like the F-35 and radar planes like the E-2D Advanced Hawkeye, enhancing the integrated naval combat network.

The emergence of the AIM-174B from a conceptual phase to an operational reality signifies a major leap in long-range strike capabilities for the U.S. Navy, bolstering its strategic posture in potential future conflicts, especially in the Pacific where long-range 'kill chains' are a major military focus.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top