AIM-174 Very Long Range AAM (SM-6)

NMaude said:
The Mk-72 booster is 68" long.



The IIR seeker could be put in the tip of the radome just like on the AIM-7R.

309fc947-86ae-4e9a-8917-5620a4d2a286-jpeg.688952
Click to expand...
I wonder if the nature of an active radar seeker makes that particular layout unviable. While we've seen SARH missiles with an IR seeker in the nose like that I don't think I've seen/heard of an active-radar homing AAM with the same.
 
Colonial-Marine said:
I wonder if the nature of an active radar seeker makes that particular layout unviable. While we've seen SARH missiles with an IR seeker in the nose like that I don't think I've seen/heard of an active-radar homing AAM with the same.
Click to expand...
David Sling or more precisely Stunner missile have both.
 
Colonial-Marine said:
I wonder if the nature of an active radar seeker makes that particular layout unviable. While we've seen SARH missiles with an IR seeker in the nose like that I don't think I've seen/heard of an active-radar homing AAM with the same.
Click to expand...
GBU-53/B and SPEAR both have that layout and they both have active MMW seeker 3938EBC8-8A39-4CAA-B924-175D20C6701C.jpeg
 
I'm wondering a turbojet powered version of the SDB-II will be developed?
 
Scott Kenny said:
Eh, maybe? You'd go from 4 per volume slot to 2. It'd take some serious analysis to convince me that losing half the capacity to gain range is worth it.
Click to expand...

Where it might make sense is if a ground-launched version was developed, the AGM-114's rocket-motor is about the right size as a launch booster.
 
Ronny said:
technically speaking, SPEAR fit the bill, it basically SDB II with turbojet engine and smaller warhead
Click to expand...
But it has a smaller warhead so not technically a powered SDB II then unless I'm reading this wrong. Raytheon has previously commented that they are exploring extended range variants of the StormBreaker but there's no current known USAF or Navy program for a munition of that range and class so a lot will depend what the services may want and what that turns out to be might be a lot different than either SDB II or SPEAR.
 
Last edited:
bring_it_on said:
But it has a smaller warhead so not technically a powered SDB II then unless I'm reading this wrong. Raytheon has previously commented that they are exploring at extended range variants of the StormBreaker but there's no current known USAF or Navy program for a munition of that range and class.
Click to expand...
yeah it does, but you got to sacrifice something to put the engine and the fuel there while still keeping the same form factor of the weapons. It would not be possible otherwise. If you make the weapon bigger or longer then this will just reduce the maximum number that an aircraft can carry . And that defeat the main purpose of miniature weapon like SDB II.
For a weapon intended to attack mobile target, reduce warhead size seem to be the best possible option since most mobile vehicle aren't designed to survive hit from big warhead anyway. Even a tank can't survive a few kg of HEAT or EEP warhead that hit their roof, so small warhead size won't be big issue
 
Binkov's Battlegrounds put out this interesting video speculating on how the US would use the AIM-174B:


Mere weeks ago, the US Navy put its newest air-to-air missile in service. It’s the biggest and longest-ranged US air-to-air missile ever. For a few years now, the new missile has occasionally been spotted under Super Hornet fighter jets.
Click to expand...
Its designation: AIM-174. This video will cover the potential of the new missile and compare it with the now-retired Phoenix missile, the AMRAAM, and China's big air-to-air missile. But even more importantly, this video will explore how the missile might be used and why it is such a big deal for the US near future firepower.
Click to expand...
00:00 Intro
01:14 AIM-174 vs SM-6
03:46 Phoenix and AMRAAM compared
07:34 Other missiles compared
11:13 AIM-174 combat uses (vs China)
17:43 The missile in service
Click to expand...
 
Since the RAAF flies Super Hornets I wonder if it will purchase a batch of AIM-174Bs?
 
NMaude said:
Since the RAAF flies Super Hornets I wonder if it will purchase a batch of AIM-174Bs?
Click to expand...

They probably do not have an operational need. They do not get close to the PLAAF. Although on the other hand, integration presumably is already handled.
 
Last edited:
Since the USN has done all of the needed integration work then if the RAAF decides to acquire the AIM-174B then they only need to pay for the missiles, spare-parts and the associated training on how to use and maintain them.
 
NMaude said:
Since the USN has done all of the needed integration work then if the RAAF decides to acquire the AIM-174B then they only need to pay for the missiles, spare-parts and the associated training on how to use and maintain them.
Click to expand...

It’s a pricey missile though. I think like $4 mil.
 
Josh_TN said:
They probably do not have an operational need. They do not get close to the PLAAF. Although on the other hand, integration presumably is already handled.
Click to expand...
I could see them buying it as a flex missile. It's damn near hypersonic, and one hitting a modern ship will do UGLY things. Less effective versus land targets unless you're talking soft targets like radars and SAM sites, but it's fast to get there. And if it's still under power as it dives down onto the target, it can jink/drunkwalk all the way down. Drunkwalking after burnout means that it burns speed after every maneuver.

And if something goes very sideways, they can use it as an AAM.
 
Scott Kenny said:
I could see them buying it as a flex missile. It's damn near hypersonic, and one hitting a modern ship will do UGLY things. Less effective versus land targets unless you're talking soft targets like radars and SAM sites, but it's fast to get there. And if it's still under power as it dives down onto the target, it can jink/drunkwalk all the way down. Drunkwalking after burnout means that it burns speed after every maneuver.

And if something goes very sideways, they can use it as an AAM.
Click to expand...

Perhaps, but we do not know the extent of the integration. The AIM designation make it pretty clear that the primary role is A2A. We do not know that F-18s can exploit the anti surface modes of the missile, assuming the air launched version retain all the same hardware and software to enable that usage.
 
Josh_TN said:
Perhaps, but we do not know the extent of the integration. The AIM designation make it pretty clear that the primary role is A2A. We do not know that F-18s can exploit the anti surface modes of the missile, assuming the air launched version retain all the same hardware and software to enable that usage.
Click to expand...
The ship-launched designation is RIM-174B, and that has all the surface to surface modes included. Not sure what the Typhon-launched designation is, I'm expecting BIM174.

I'd be very surprised if the AIM174 is not able to use anti surface modes.
 
Josh_TN said:
The AIM designation make it pretty clear that the primary role is A2A.
Click to expand...
No it does not.

AIM designation denotes AIR LAUNCH.

RIM is ship launch.

That is literally how the designation system was intended to be working. If tge weapon has over 80 percent [irc] commonity it is to be consider the same weapon and you mere switch out the launch type Designation Letter. In this cause The R replace with the A.

Any upgrades that allow a wider target selection post IOC is not consider into the designation unless it needs mods that break that limit which results in a whole new missile designation. It why the SM2s and HARMs dont get a ground or ship attack modifier despite beinf noted as being able to do that just as well as there primary roles.

Especially since the SM6 is noted to use its inbuilt seeker to find and attack surface targets and does not need any outside guidence besides a good here and look. Which is exactly what you need to do Air Attack as well. With everything being a software mod and not a hardware deal to do so.

TLDR, its heavily imply that everything that the RIM174 can do implies to the AIM174 as well.
 
Jason Dykstra (Wyvern) said:
If that really is the case, how can it be guided? This could potentially show that this project might be a stand-in for an A2G version of the RIM-174, which has been floated about in the past
Click to expand...
You probably aren't ever shooting it at a target 620 km away. You're probably shooting it at a 400 km target and getting a very high PK. It has an amraam seeker, should be able to guide in on a tanker or AWACS by the time it's lost data link.
 
Jason Dykstra (Wyvern) said:
If that really is the case, how can it be guided? This could potentially show that this project might be a stand-in for an A2G version of the RIM-174, which has been floated about in the past
Click to expand...

Some other platform could provide guidance; SM-6 can use offboard platforms like F-35 and E-2D. Though personally I find that range highly suspect. Or super sus, as the kids say.
 
Josh_TN said:
Some other platform could provide guidance; SM-6 can use offboard platforms like F-35 and E-2D. Though personally I find that range highly suspect. Or super sus, as the kids say.
Click to expand...
That range is extrapolated from the estimated max ranges of other very long range AAM. Bigger missile = more range is the assumption. Max range is of course not the same as effective range. Shooting at the absolute max range would give a very low PK so would probably never be employed like that.
 
All depends on the target type.

300 plus miles against a fighter is suspected.

But against a bomber or AWACS? This likely prey?

That PK is going to go way up cause those planes are no way near as agile as a fighter.

paralay said:
And who will give him a target designation for such a range, did they say?
Click to expand...

F35 or E2s.

One is Stealthy with decent a radar range of 100 odd miles and the other have over 400 miles of seeing.

Datalinkage targeting is an old hat for the US Military.
 
paralay said:
And who will give him a target designation for such a range, did they say?
Click to expand...

I think there would be a num of options, but I also think that these ranges the target could easily flee from a CB missile that probably drops into the transonic range, so long as the target understands it’s being attacked. And SM-6 is not a small missile.

I think realistic ranges against even turboprops are probably 200-250 mi / 300-400 km, even if the missile can glide for another hundred miles. Against surface targets that range might be more effectively realized.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom