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

[Manuducati]

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.

AIM stands for "Air Intercept Missile" so yes, it does mean exactly that.
First letter is for the launch platform (A for air, B for ground, R for surface ships, U for submarines and so on).
Second letter is for the type of target (I for Intercept/aerial target, G for ground/surface...)
And M for the type of weapon, missile here of course.

Aerospaceweb.org | Ask Us - US Rocket & Missile Designation System

 

[bobbymike]

It’s been my speculation for awhile posted on different threads that the US can effectively track and target airborne targets from space. Hence the rapid development of counter space assets by China and Russia.

 

[NMaude]

If that really is the case, how can it be guided?

One word - "Datalink". The SM-6 has a two-way datalink so that it can receive midcourse guidance updates through datalink from other aircraft such as the F-35 or E-2 and IIRC it also has GPS. It just needs to know the general area it needs to fly to so that when it enters the terminal phase (By switching on its' active seeker) it can quickly acquire its' target.

 

[Josh_TN]

It’s been my speculation for awhile posted on different threads that the US can effectively track and target airborne targets from space. Hence the rapid development of counter space assets by China and Russia.

I doubt there is any such capability now or in the immediate future. In a few years I think there might be a GMTI system of some sort.

 

[Firefinder]

AIM stands for "Air Intercept Missile" so yes, it does mean exactly that.
First letter is for the launch platform (A for air, B for ground, R for surface ships, U for submarines and so on).
Second letter is for the type of target (I for Intercept/aerial target, G for ground/surface...)
And M for the type of weapon, missile here of course.

Aerospaceweb.org | Ask Us - US Rocket & Missile Designation System

expect that you know.

That doesn't tell everything on a weapons ability.

Unless you saying the Navy lying on the RIM66 and RIM174 anti ship ability.

The RIM174 has found and attack ships on its own without guidence aids.

Why will the AIM174 that nearly the same missile and does uses the same seeker be any different?

 

[Josh_TN]

The missile is the likely the same guidance package. It is not clear the F-18s have been integrated to engage surface targets, where as I presume anti air was the first priority. On the other hand it might have all the same target modes available as well, and even if it doesn’t, the ability to link to NIFCA likely means some other platform might guide it to a surface target even if that was not a setting the F-18 has been equipped for yet.

In any case I doubt it would see much use as an anti surface asset in combat; there are other systems for that.

 

[Manuducati]

expect that you know.

That doesn't tell everything on a weapons ability.

Unless you saying the Navy lying on the RIM66 and RIM174 anti ship ability.

The RIM174 has found and attack ships on its own without guidence aids.

Why will the AIM174 that nearly the same missile and does uses the same seeker be any different?

Your point was that "AIM" doesn't mean primary air-to-air role. It does.
Now you're shifting towards secondary capabilities...

 

[Scott Kenny]

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.

Yes, the entire Standard series is primarily anti-air. They have also had a secondary antiship capability since the beginning, even though their MDS is RIM-66/RIM-67/RIM-156/RIM174. All Intercept missiles.

The MDS is going to get weird with more multirole missiles coming into stock...

 

[NMaude]

even though their MDS is RIM-66/RIM-67/RIM-156/RIM174. All Intercept missiles.

Except for the YRGM-66F which never went into service (It was a backup design to the RGM-84 Harpoon) which was a pity because there certainly was a role for a supersonic AShM especially an air-launched version.

 

[Dilandu]

Except for the YRGM-66F which never went into service (It was a backup design to the RGM-84 Harpoon) which was a pity because there certainly was a role for a supersonic AShM especially an air-launched version.

Let's be frank; as supersonic AShM it was extremely limited. Small warhead, only high trajectories, no self-defense capability or terminal maneuvering. Essentially its only advantage was small size and low radar signature. A Vandal-based heavy AShM would be a better solution.

 

[stealthflanker]

Using @Dilbert 's "Minizap" I made some rough estimate of ranges for the 174's. Also i recorded it, finally get the Obs to work with minizap.

Concern with this is that aside from known sizes and weight of the AIM-174 (basically SM-6 without booster) There is no disclosure on the burn duration and profile for the Mk 104 Rocket motor. So it's speculative. Te missile is assumed to be launched from 10000 m and M 1.25 speed.

Basically beyond 250 km it may have trouble engaging anything maneuvereable.

 

[Josh_TN]

Most its primary targets likely are turbo prop or unmanned, so the poor terminal characteristics are probably not a huge limitation. Most any single pulse solid rocket is going to have that issue. A purpose built weapon like PL-17 likely uses dual pulses.

 

[Forest Green]

Maximum speed of Mach 4.7 seems very low. Weight is stated on the side at 1,890lb, that's 857kg (that may include the rail??). Considerable guesswork for propellant mass. Looking at figures for the Mk72 and Mk104, the guessed propellant mass is way way too low.

Mk 104

Mk 104

www.astronautix.com

500kg gross - 128kg unfuelled = 372kg propellant = 74.4% propellant fraction

Hence for a 857kg missile:
74.4% gives 638kg

Minus 64kg warhead and 36kg electronics ~ 538kg propellant

 

[sferrin]

Maximum speed of Mach 4.7 seems very low. Weight is stated on the side at 1,890lb, that's 857kg (that may include the rail??). Considerable guesswork for propellant mass. Looking at figures for the Mk72 and Mk104, the guessed propellant mass is way way too low.

Mk 104

Mk 104

www.astronautix.com

500kg gross - 128kg unfuelled = 372kg propellant = 74.4% propellant fraction

Hence for a 857kg missile:
74.4% gives 638kg

Minus 64kg warhead and 36kg electronics ~ 538kg propellant

Keep in mind they added a couple hundred pounds in the form of dead weight to strengthen the structure for carrier operations.

 

[Jimmo952]

Let's be frank; as supersonic AShM it was extremely limited. Small warhead, only high trajectories, no self-defense capability or terminal maneuvering. Essentially its only advantage was small size and low radar signature. A Vandal-based heavy AShM would be a better solution.

Maybe not ideal but not useless.

It was a British Destroyer that withdrew from the Red Sea in part because it's air defenses were not able to engage and defeat incoming ballistics missiles.

Engaging something like an SM-6 in anti-surface mode as well as incoming LRASMs or NSMs is beyond the capability of most existing ship self-defense systems.

The warhead of the SM-6 is obviously not ideal but the kinetic energy of the weapon is going to leave a mark that's hard to buff out.

The new SM-6 Block 1B will be even more of a beast; faster and with a larger warhead.

 

[sferrin]

Maybe not ideal but not useless.

It was a British Destroyer that withdrew from the Red Sea in part because it's air defenses were not able to engage and defeat incoming ballistics missiles.

Engaging something like an SM-6 in anti-surface mode as well as incoming LRASMs or NSMs is beyond the capability of most existing ship self-defense systems.

The warhead of the SM-6 is obviously not ideal but the kinetic energy of the weapon is going to leave a mark that's hard to buff out.

The new SM-6 Block 1B will be even more of a beast; faster and with a larger warhead.

How do we know it's getting a larger warhead? Do we even know which warhead SM-6 has, or is it assumed to be the same as SM-2?

 

[Jimmo952]

How do we know it's getting a larger warhead? Do we even know which warhead SM-6 has, or is it assumed to be the same as SM-2?

I've read that the new warhead is larger but I don't have that exact information in front of me.

I could be wrong meaning the articles were incorrect but I'd bet against that.

It's Certainly not unrealistic to think a larger warhead would be accommodated.

Not to harp on it, but the kinetic impact of the missile alone is going to create a mess of a modern frigate sized warship.

 

[Dilandu]

Maybe not ideal but not useless.

I never said it is useless. And we were talking not about SM-6, but about RGM-66F - an anti-ship version of SM-1MR with active seeker - which was far less advanced and capable. To put it simply, RGM-66F:

* Have a range of about 70 km on high ballistic trajectory
* Have a max velocity of less than 3.5 Mach (terminal velocity on max range would probably be no more than 1.5-2 Mach)
* Could not made low-altitude approach
* Have no capability for evasive maneuvering or ECM's
* Have no swarming capacity
* Have a small 60-kg wahread

Basically, it was a weapon against small ships and missile boats.

 

[Dilandu]

How do we know it's getting a larger warhead? Do we even know which warhead SM-6 has, or is it assumed to be the same as SM-2?

Even if it got a new warhead, it would most likely be optimized against missiles (including ballistic ones) and planes, not against surface targets. At most, they may include delayed detonation option for the fuze (so missile would penetrate target hull before exploding).

 

[Jimmo952]

Even if it got a new warhead, it would most likely be optimized against missiles (including ballistic ones) and planes, not against surface targets. At most, they may include delayed detonation option for the fuze (so missile would penetrate target hull before exploding).

How fast would an SM-6 Block 1B going? How much would it weigh?

Think about the kinetic energy being dumped into the target.

It's going to wreck any frigate-sized warship it hits.

Defending against a very fast missile flying with that flight profile while also knocking down stealthy LRASMs, NSM, ... is a very challenging task.

 

[Forest Green]

Keep in mind they added a couple hundred pounds in the form of dead weight to strengthen the structure for carrier operations.

Yeah, that might be why the weight is more than simply the weight of an SM-6 minues the weight of a Mk72 booster, which would give around 800kg, not 857kg. Factoring that into the calculation would give around 500kg propellant.

How do we know it's getting a larger warhead? Do we even know which warhead SM-6 has, or is it assumed to be the same as SM-2?

Global security actually says 62kg.

Standard Missile Specifications

www.globalsecurity.org

 

[Josh_TN]

I doubt SM-6 will ever see much anti ship use. It loses energy pretty rapidly with extended ranges. It is most deadly at relatively short ranges. If the reported “Sea Dragon” supersonic sub launched missile is in fact SM-6, I suspect it is intended primarily for relatively short ranged, ultra fast strikes just outside a TF’s ASW screen. It would likely be very supersonic throughout its aeroballistic flight path at say, the first convection zone. But ships and planes would struggle to close to those ranges and a number of long range subsonic weapons are available instead.

 

[Dilandu]

I doubt SM-6 will ever see much anti ship use. It loses energy pretty rapidly with extended ranges. It is most deadly at relatively short ranges. If the reported “Sea Dragon” supersonic sub launched missile is in fact SM-6, I suspect it is intended primarily for relatively short ranged, ultra fast strikes just outside a TF’s ASW screen. It would likely be very supersonic throughout its aeroballistic flight path at say, the first convection zone. But ships and planes would struggle to close to those ranges and a number of long range subsonic weapons are available instead.

Yep. And also - the SM-6 supply is not unlimited. The production numbers are relatively low, and it clearly would be in short supply for at least a few years.

 

[NMaude]

Keep in mind they added a couple hundred pounds in the form of dead weight to strengthen the structure for carrier operations.

While the modifications based on photographs to enable the AIM-174B to be launched from an F/A-18E/F looks a bit Micky-mouse/Heath Robinson I highly doubt it would add 200Lb to the missile's weight.

 

[Scott Kenny]

While the modifications based on photographs to enable the AIM-174B to be launched from an F/A-18E/F looks a bit Micky-mouse/Heath Robinson I highly doubt it would add 200Lb to the missile's weight.

Except we've got a photo of one of those missiles hanging on the wing with a weight of ~1890lbs, IIRC.

 

[Colonial-Marine]

Has the weight of a regular SM-6 without the booster attached even been confirmed? It's possible the main portion of the SM-6 is simply heavier than what is commonly thought. Many would just assume it had the same weight as the later SM-2MR Block III variants but maybe this was never the case.

 

[NMaude]

Except we've got a photo of one of those missiles hanging on the wing with a weight of ~1890lbs, IIRC.

But is that weight the definitive final weight?

 

[Josh_TN]

I think we are splitting hairs. Terminal performance at extreme range will suck. Against some flavor of Y-8, which is the entire MPA and AWACS force and a lot of the manned ELINT force, that likely does not matter. Against HALE drones flying in straight lines with little situation awareness, little thrust, and delayed pilot input delays, that also probably does not matter.

 

[Forest Green]

While the modifications based on photographs to enable the AIM-174B to be launched from an F/A-18E/F looks a bit Micky-mouse/Heath Robinson I highly doubt it would add 200Lb to the missile's weight.

It adds 130lbs, 1760lbs (theoretical) to 1890lbs.

 

[Zoo Tycoon]

Here’s another AIM174 range estimate from YouTuber Millennium 7;-

View: https://youtu.be/rhsSlmbnV8I?si=zb1uOyw9NRNlBRLc


He presents his workings, which is based on size comparisons with other AAM and a mass from an unusual source;- it’s likely to be in the ball park, although he does say his figures are likely optimistic. Hold on to your hats as it’s significantly higher than any other.

 

[NMaude]

Snip.

He presents his workings, which is based on size comparisons with other AAM and a mass from an unusual source;- it’s likely to be in the ball park, although he does say his figures are likely optimistic. Hold on to your hats as it’s significantly higher than any other.

Someone else has already posted this video.

 

[Ainen]

His pl-15 numbers - which he used in his statistical analysis - alone makes it sorta questionable.
Though to be fair, when he isn't touching anything China-related, he's quite good.

 

[Scott Kenny]

His pl-15 numbers - which he used in his statistical analysis - alone makes it sorta questionable.
Though to be fair, when he isn't touching anything China-related, he's quite good.

That's only one data point in the analysis, he's used a lot of others. I don't think that excluding the PL15 numbers would greatly change the analysis. But I did something to my arm this week and it's been keeping me from sleeping. So please don't ask me to do any sadistics, even if it is just plugging data into Excel and clicking the "find R^2" button.

 

[FighterJock]

I suppose it is only a matter of time before we have the definitive information about both the PL-15 and the AIM-174. I would not like to speculate about the data for both missiles.

 

[totoro]

If by matter if time you mean several decades, sure.
I find it unlikely that either side will release any sort of data within lifetimes of most people here.
There are plenty of examples of 40+ year old missiles where no data has yet been released.

 

[NMaude]

There are plenty of examples of 40+ year old missiles where no data has yet been released.

Will you cite examples please?

 

[totoro]

Sea sparrow, amraam, patriot, sm-2 and so on. Sure, some placeholder "greater than xy range" figure might be cited by the user, but actual real world engagement values coupled with useful context parameters have never been released by either the user or the manufacturer. Any other source would basically be stating a rumor or a guess.

 

[Forest Green]

I suppose it is only a matter of time before we have the definitive information about both the PL-15 and the AIM-174. I would not like to speculate about the data for both missiles.

The PL-17 is really the Chinese counterpart, the PL-15 only has a 200mm diameter and is only 4m in length, it's not even in the same ballpark. It's inclusion in the analysis is pointless. I don't buy the 300km figure for the PL-15, the lower 200km sounds more like it.

 

[Ainen]

The PL-17 is really the Chinese counterpart, the PL-15 only has a 200mm diameter and is only 4m in length, it's not even in the same ballpark. It's inclusion in the analysis is pointless. I don't buy the 300km figure for the PL-15, the lower 200km sounds more like it.

There were rather credible papers pointing to the number in very high 100s - more than AMRAAM D3, but not too much. More than that can be gained with a higher/supersonic launch - but there is a limit on how much so, ultimately normal MRAAMs are limited by heating.
LRAAMs don't just have more fuel etc, they can sustain those higher energy flight conditions without cooking themselves.

 

[stealthflanker]

Just dont forget missile needs electrical power and when battery runs out, so does the missile. Rocket powered missile may have battery or a solid fuel gas generator, which basically another small rocket motor that provide gas stream to turn a generator which then powered the missile. Naturally the longer desired controlled flight time, the bigger the battery/generator goes as well as the power requirement.

He presents his workings, which is based on size comparisons with other AAM and a mass from an unusual source;- it’s likely to be in the ball park, although he does say his figures are likely optimistic. Hold on to your hats as it’s significantly higher than any other.

This is fine for initial sizing for missile conceptual design. However if any real world scenario is to be taken, i would recommend going bit deeper with E.Fleeman's book/methods.