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

The performance of that configuration must suck. I would think that could only be workable as an alert 5 configuration.
 
Josh_TN said:
The performance of that configuration must suck. I would think that could only be workable as an alert 5 configuration.
Click to expand...
How about "just the four AIM-174s" and nothing else ? no AIM-9 nor AIM-120 nor the pods ? Should help a little. I think what trully matters is to proof that every single USN F-18E/F can become a very long range missile truck.

(Dumb math incoming) Wikipedia tells me Superbug production has been 632 airframes. Imagine every single of them carrying 4*AIM-174s; launching them in massive volleys against, say, chinese combat and support aircraft : this should do some ravage from the safe distance of, say, 250 miles.
Not too bad for an USN whose Super Hornets might be of lower performance than all the chinese types (say : J-20). Same for long range firepower lost since the end of the Tomcat. Also the super carriers vulnerable to massive chinese missile power.

The USN just has turned its Superbug fleet into long range missile trucks. That make them relevant again in those days of stealth: J-20s and F-35s.

Back to the Tomcat days "outer air battle" https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2020/september/resurrect-outer-air-battle Except from twice or thrice as far.
 
The SM-6 is ~1850 lbs, AIM-120 is 350 lbs. Leaving out the AIM-120 is like leaving the cherry off your ice cream sundae. That configuration is going to have serious range limitations.
 
Out of interest, if anyone was wanting to model the AIM-174 on something like a Super Hornet, Flight Line Resin have a kit:

1575218-89791-94-pristine.jpg
 
Archibald said:
How about "just the four AIM-174s" and nothing else ? no AIM-9 nor AIM-120 nor the pods ? Should help a little. I think what trully matters is to proof that every single USN F-18E/F can become a very long range missile truck.

(Dumb math incoming) Wikipedia tells me Superbug production has been 632 airframes. Imagine every single of them carrying 4*AIM-174s; launching them in massive volleys against, say, chinese combat and support aircraft : this should do some ravage from the safe distance of, say, 250 miles.
Not too bad for an USN whose Super Hornets might be of lower performance than all the chinese types (say : J-20). Same for long range firepower lost since the end of the Tomcat. Also the super carriers vulnerable to massive chinese missile power.

The USN just has turned its Superbug fleet into long range missile trucks. That make them relevant again in those days of stealth: J-20s and F-35s.

Back to the Tomcat days "outer air battle" https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2020/september/resurrect-outer-air-battle Except from twice or thrice as far.
Click to expand...

If they could manage to get more fuel on the Superbug in a solely 4-AIM-174B configuration it’d be the reincarnation of the old Missileer designs.

I wonder what range/loiter time they could get with only 2 174’s and all plumbed stations loaded with fuel tanks? The same for 3 missiles, assuming the centreline can take one…
 
Archibald said:
How about "just the four AIM-174s" and nothing else ? no AIM-9 nor AIM-120 nor the pods ? Should help a little. I think what trully matters is to proof that every single USN F-18E/F can become a very long range missile truck.

(Dumb math incoming) Wikipedia tells me Superbug production has been 632 airframes. Imagine every single of them carrying 4*AIM-174s; launching them in massive volleys against, say, chinese combat and support aircraft : this should do some ravage from the safe distance of, say, 250 miles.
Not too bad for an USN whose Super Hornets might be of lower performance than all the chinese types (say : J-20). Same for long range firepower lost since the end of the Tomcat. Also the super carriers vulnerable to massive chinese missile power.

The USN just has turned its Superbug fleet into long range missile trucks. That make them relevant again in those days of stealth: J-20s and F-35s.

Back to the Tomcat days "outer air battle" https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2020/september/resurrect-outer-air-battle Except from twice or thrice as far.
Click to expand...
Are you confident the USN has the ability to target an LO or potentially VLO target at the ranges the AIM-174 could use? All well and good to have a long range missile but if you can't see the target until is is perhaps 80 to 100nm away then 250nm is somewhat irrelevant.

Yes there will be non VLO targets and that is where I see the 174 being used, against force multipliers, non vlo and the B-6s.
 
Ainen said:
Superbug with those missiles is anything but long range/long endurance.

It isn't an f-14.
Click to expand...
AIM-174B weight 1900 lbs, slightly lighter than MK-84 at 2000 lbs
F-18E/F with 2 AIM-120 + 2 AIM-9 + 2 MK-84 + 1 centerline fuel will have combat radius of 590 nm (1092 km). Not good not terrible.
IMG_6090.png

In term of engagement range, these AIM-174 will have very long range because they are very big.
Quick comparison
R-37M
weight: 510 kg (1120 lbs)
Length: 4.06 meters.
Diameter: 380mm

AIM-54C
Weight: 460 kg (1015 lbs)
Length: 3.9 meters
Diameter: 380 mm

AIM-174B (without booster)
Weight: 860 kg (1900 lbs)
Length: 4.85 meters
Diameter: 343mm
 
Ronny said:
AIM-174B weight 1900 lbs, slightly lighter than MK-84 at 2000 lbs
F-18E/F with 2 AIM-120 + 2 AIM-9 + 2 MK-84 + 1 centerline fuel will have combat radius of 590 nm (1092 km). Not good not terrible.
View attachment 740722
Click to expand...

This might be optimistic. As for the AIM-174/Mk-84 comparison, the missile might be a tad lighter, but it is also far larger, less streamlined (Mk-80 series bomb are as low drag as you can get), and with barn door sized wings that act as speedbrakes (with the hardpoints and ordnance canted outward by three degrees) from launch to release point.
 
starviking said:
If they could manage to get more fuel on the Superbug in a solely 4-AIM-174B configuration it’d be the reincarnation of the old Missileer designs.

I wonder what range/loiter time they could get with only 2 174’s and all plumbed stations loaded with fuel tanks? The same for 3 missiles, assuming the centreline can take one…
Click to expand...
Where would you put your AIM-174s?

21020bf23ec7333e31e175f8b70ac767a7eebb92.jpeg
 
Forest Green said:
www.twz.com

F/A-18 Super Hornet Appears With Unprecedented Heavy Air-To-Air Missile Load

This is the first time we have seen four AIM-174B very long-range air-to-air missiles on a Super Hornet, along with pods and other missiles.
www.twz.com www.twz.com
Click to expand...
The SH is already a pig when flown with a much modest loadout. Now imagine the effect that 4x 1,900 lb missiles on those canted-out pylons (+ 2x AMRAAM, 2x AIM-9X, a CL tank/IRST and ATFLIR) must have on its performances... The amount of drag created must be immense. Really curious what is the SH's combat radius in this configuration.

I doubt this is a realistic loadout. Yes, it can be done. Just like the F-14 could fly (and trap) with 6x AIM-54 but this was not used operationally because it wasnt a practical loadout. At least the F-14 could recover aboard a carrier with six unspent AIM-54s although the margins were very tight (only one or two passes before hitting the tanker). Something the SH in this configuration would be hard-pressed to do.

Frankly, this whole thing is just not a very elegant solution. Slapping a SAM on a primarily strike-oriented platform* and there we go, "We are back in the fleet air defense business, folks!". :rolleyes: The way i see it, this rather ankward SH/AIM-174 combo is nothing more than a band-aid solution until, hopefully, a true fleet defender (F/A-XX?) enters service.

*Always thought the "A/F-18E/F" designation would have been more accurate than "F/A-18E/F" given the emphasis for the SH was always on strike with secondary fighter capabilities, but i digress.
 
Last edited:
I think this configuration has limited utility but I also think it is healthy for the USN to test an certify it. You clearly would not want your whole CAP configured this way but you might want four set up as raid breakers.

More typically I would expect a percentage of the CAP to carry two as a long range anti ISR capability against MALE/HALE drones and that air launched rocket UAV the PRC employs.
 
ST21 said:
The SH is already a pig when flown with a much modest loadout. Now imagine the effect that 4x 1,900 lb missiles on those canted-out pylons (+ 2x AMRAAM, 2x AIM-9X, a CL tank/IRST and ATFLIR) must have on its performances... The amount of drag created must be immense. Really curious what is the SH's combat radius in this configuration.

I doubt this is a realistic loadout. Yes, it can be done. Just like the F-14 could fly (and trap) with 6x AIM-54 but this was not used operationally because it wasnt a practical loadout. At least the F-14 could recover aboard a carrier with six unspent AIM-54s although the margins were very tight (only one or two passes before hitting the tanker). Something the SH in this configuration would be hard-pressed to do.

Frankly, this whole thing is just not a very elegant solution. Slapping a SAM on a primarily strike-oriented platform* and there we go, "We are back in the fleet air defense business, folks!". :rolleyes: The way i see it, this rather ankward SH/AIM-174 combo is nothing more than a band-aid solution until, hopefully, a true fleet defender (F/A-XX?) enters service.

*Always thought the "A/F-18E/F" designation would have been more accurate than "F/A-18E/F" given the emphasis for the SH was always on strike with secondary fighter capabilities, but i digress.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure a member with the pseudo @ST21 is fully objective about the Super Hornet... :D
 
Josh_TN said:
I think this configuration has limited utility but I also think it is healthy for the USN to test an certify it. You clearly would not want your whole CAP configured this way but you might want four set up as raid breakers.

More typically I would expect a percentage of the CAP to carry two as a long range anti ISR capability against MALE/HALE drones and that air launched rocket UAV the PRC employs.
Click to expand...
Could it be used for shooting down high altitude hypersonics?
 
Archibald said:
I'm not sure a member with the pseudo @ST21 is fully objective about the Super Hornet... :D
Click to expand...
Guilty as charged. ;)

There is nothing incorrect in my statements on the SH though. That the SH is a "pig" once you start hanging things under its wings was not a hyperbole on my part. I was literally quoting a SH pilot who used that term.

That the F/A-18F loaded for bear we see in that picture posted two pages ago doesnt have the ability to recover aboard a carrier with that loadout is a fact. That the SH was never designed with the long range intercept mission in mind but primarily for the strike role is also factual.
 
Forest Green said:
Could it be used for shooting down high altitude hypersonics?
Click to expand...

Perhaps, but probably not on sufficient quantity compared to ship launch. IMO the major advantage is reaching out to long range ISR assets, raid pathfinders, and if necessary bombers. You would only half to kill a half dozen bombers for the rest of the formation to get cold feet, unless they were especially determined…
 
Last edited:
Ronny said:
AIM-174B weight 1900 lbs, slightly lighter than MK-84 at 2000 lbs
F-18E/F with 2 AIM-120 + 2 AIM-9 + 2 MK-84 + 1 centerline fuel will have combat radius of 590 nm (1092 km). Not good not terrible.
Click to expand...
It's stand off strike range, hihihi cruise, to and back.
Hornet/Shornet cap station is several times lower even with normal weapon load.
 
sferrin said:
Where would you put your AIM-174s?

View attachment 740737
Click to expand...

Well, in the case of 4 AIM-147s they would need to be on the 2 innermost stations on each wing.

In that case fuel would need to be centreline, plus CFTs if available.

If 3 big boys, one would be centreline, one each on an innermost station, with fuel tanks on the other innermost stations, plus CFTs if available.

If only two big boys, one each on an innermost station, fuel tank centreline and remaining innermost stations, plus CFTs if available.

I’m sure there are enough SuperBug experts on the forum to comment on the possibilities above.

I was also looking at the Missileer data from Friedman’s Fighters Over the Fleet : its operational speed was 0.5 Mach.

Would the SuperBug gain anything in endurance at a much lower operational speed?
 
Josh_TN said:
Perhaps, but probably not on sufficient quantity compared to ship launch. IMO the major advantage is reaching out to long range ISR assets, raid pathfinders, and if necessary bombers. You would only half to kill a half dozen bombers for the rest of the formation to get cold feet, unless they were especially determined…
Click to expand...
You could defend against incoming missiles in two waves, first one would be the fighters, then the ship-based defences. It could potentially be used against the bombers but some hypersonic AShMs have a range of >1,000km.
 
Tbh, at this point it seems to me that best normal load for SH is one such missile, just for ISR deterrent value.

Two - for a very specific task of hypersonic/ballistic defense reinforcement(from alert on the deck), especially if outside of the order(flexible footprint extension).

For almost anything else, it seems that USN really will have to wait for NGAD. And they really need that big airframe.
 
Forest Green said:
You could defend against incoming missiles in two waves, first one would be the fighters, then the ship-based defences. It could potentially be used against the bombers but some hypersonic AShMs have a range of >1,000km.
Click to expand...

I think it could be done, I just think it would take committing most of the air wing to that mission to have a constant CAP with any significant density. It might be desirable for the opening of a conflict when strikes are expected to be at maximum intensity, but it would probably be hard to maintain and prevent the air ground from conducting any missions outside defense. Even two missiles and three drop tanks is a draggy configuration that’s going to require a lot of tankers to support.
 
Ainen said:
Tbh, at this point it seems to me that best normal load for SH is one such missile, just for ISR deterrent value.

Two - for a very specific task of hypersonic/ballistic defense reinforcement(from alert on the deck), especially if outside of the order(flexible footprint extension).

For almost anything else, it seems that USN really will have to wait for NGAD. And they really need that big airframe.
Click to expand...

I cannot imagine single missiles are a sufficiently reliable capability and I think carrying two with three drop tanks is not an overly challenging configuration. That’s roughly like carrying a pair of mk 84s or four Mk83s on tandem racks.
 
Josh_TN said:
I cannot imagine single missiles are a sufficiently reliable capability
Click to expand...
No need to be reliable. Just enough to make sure all the combat multiplier props are scared.

Every one of them is full of very special professionals who won't even get a chance to eject from a tumbling cargo hull.

Even if there's a lot of them, it just isn't an attritable asset.
Ironically, from this perspective E-2s with their small crews are in a better position. Fewer operators mean softer losses.
 
Pardon me, missed some replies the previous times I was in here...


NMaude said:
I wonder if an air-launched version* of the SM-3 will be developed? It could be used as an ASAT taking over the role of the long retired ASM-135 ASAT.

*Without the Mk-72 booster attached.
Click to expand...
Could be, but I'm not sure anyone would bother with it.



quellish said:
Are you sure someone has been asking the right questions?

I find it interesting that these programs are being called “shadowy” when you can fill out some forms and get information on them from DoD.
Click to expand...
The trick is figuring out the right questions to ask.



Archibald said:
With all the doubts related to NGAD... would it be feasible to build a twin F135 supersonic stealth fighter with an internal weapon bay large enough for 4*AIM-174s ? And the related radar to guide them ? Might end as a huge beast the size of weight of a MiG-31... or a Tu-128. Hopefully not as big as an YF-12 !
EDIT - drats, I realize it would be akin to a US J-20 ?
Click to expand...
Yes, it'd be possible. Bay length of 16+ft, maybe 21 or 22ft so you can stuff some big air-to-ground ordnance in there. If there was otherwise space, a ~28ft long bay would be ideal.

Probably only 125klbs MTOW, so not as big as a YF12. Those were 140klbs. But it would be roughly F-111 sized.
 
Looks like a regular Apple keyboard to me, those models obviously aren't scaled 1:1 to their real-world counterparts*, but I assume they are all the same scale and so can be compared with each other. What is the missile to the right of the CUDA or whatever the mini-missile is? Is that some kind of 250lb bomb further to the right?

*That is unless the guy happens to be some kind of giant and bought some giant-sized Mac and Steam Deck. In which case he could probably throw a real AIM-120 at someone like a javelin.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom