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

4decaa said:
https://twitter.com/x/status/1836524701218218174
View: https://x.com/alexhollings52/status/1836524701218218174?s=46
I think most Alex posts come with an asterisk but this is pretty interesting assuming he scaled them properly
Click to expand...

I think something is amiss. Assuming the missile closest to the camera is AMRAAM and the fourth one over is Meteor, they are not in the right scale to each other (or the camera has some wicked foreshortening happening because it's shooting wide angle)
 
TomcatViP said:
@Colonial-Marine : sorry but I deleted my post fearing the joke was too light.
Click to expand...
But now my joke makes less sense. Oh well, no big deal.

TomS said:
I think something is amiss. Assuming the missile closest to the camera is AMRAAM and the fourth one over is Meteor, they are not in the right scale to each other (or the camera has some wicked foreshortening happening because it's shooting wide angle)
Click to expand...
I was going to comment on that thinking it might be Meteor. Meteor in reality is the same size as AMRAAM, well at least the body of the missile is. 7" diameter and same length, so something looks off there, unless the lens perspective is really skewing things like you said.
 
The dimensions of AIM-120 and SM-2 are very accessible. SM-6 is probably quite close in length and identical in diameter. It clearly is a very large missile, as most medium-long range SAMs are. But even in limited numbers it has some range and networking advantages, given the USN NIFCA architecture.
 
Josh_TN said:
The dimensions of AIM-120 and SM-2 are very accessible. SM-6 is probably quite close in length and identical in diameter. It clearly is a very large missile, as most medium-long range SAMs are. But even in limited numbers it has some range and networking advantages, given the USN NIFCA architecture.
Click to expand...
Bigger and heavier than the old AIM-54 Phoenix even. I can't help but think pilots tasked with hauling those things would benefit from the extra thrust the Navy could have gotten out of an improved F414 variant for the Super Hornet.
 
NMaude said:
The SM-6 is both longer and wider than the AMRAAM, 13.5" vs 7" diameters, 15' 10" (Less the 68" Mk-72 booster) vs 12'.
Click to expand...

I meant SM-2 vs SM-6. I do not think exact SM-6 length is known sans mk72, but it should be more or less SM-2 equivalent.
 
4decaa said:
https://twitter.com/x/status/1836524701218218174
View: https://x.com/alexhollings52/status/1836524701218218174?s=46
I think most Alex posts come with an asterisk but this is pretty interesting assuming he scaled them properly
Click to expand...
No, he did not.

Colonial-Marine said:
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.
Click to expand...
No, those missiles are NOT scaled to each other.

From closest to the keyboard:
AIM9
Mk80series 1000lb bomb (with a bad model, there's no cylindrical sections on a Mk80 series!)
Meteor, but out of scale because it should be the same length as AIM-120.
Something weirdly off scale, but it looks like a greatly shortened ESSM. Maybe a CUDA/Halfraam (but I thought those didn't have strakes)?
SM6
AIM-120

The only really useful comparison is that of the SM6 to the AMRAAM. The SM6 is in the neighborhood of 13.5" in diameter and 21'6" long (length is an estimate, diameter is known), and is 1900lbs.
 
Josh_TN said:
I do not think exact SM-6 length is known sans mk72
Click to expand...

The Mk-72 is 68" long (5' 8"). @Scott Kenny pointed out my maths error.

Scott Kenny said:
Mk80series 1000lb bomb (with a bad model, there's no cylindrical sections on a Mk80 series!)
Click to expand...

You are right about the cylindrical centre-section however I looked closely at the model and it may not be that of a Mk-83 1,000Lb GP bomb but that of a B61 Mod 12 fitted with the JDAM tail-kit.
 
Last edited:
NMaude said:
The Mk-72 is 68" long (5' 2").
Click to expand...
5'8" but yes.

Which can give us a maximum possible length for the SM6, that of the length of a Mk41 tactical cell. 266"-68"=198", 16'6". Or, if the SM6s are stuffed into Strike length cells, those are 303" long for a max missile length of 235", 19'7".

NMaude said:
You are right about the cylindrical centre-section however I looked closely at the model and it may not be that of a Mk-83 1,000Lb GP bomb but that of a B61 Mod 12 fitted with the JDAM tail-kit.
Click to expand...
You may be right. B61 is a straight cylinder for a chunk of its length. And I think the JDAM tail is shorter than the standard B61 tail, which would make a Mod 12 within a couple inches of the length of a Sidewinder.
 
VTOLicious said:
@Scott Kenny ;)
https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/aim-174-very-long-range-aam-sm-6.43897/post-709543
View attachment 741500
Click to expand...
I like how the wingspan is too small but diameter to big.

But going based on Nav.mil we get for the SM-6 Block 1A:
Length: Approx. 21 feet, 6 inches or 6.55 meters
Wingspan: Approx. 3 feet, 6 inches or 1.08 meters
Diameter: isn't given but we all know that the MK 72 is 21 inches or ~533mm and the upperstage is 13.5 inches or 343mm

We know the MK.72 is 21 inches wide and 68 inches long.

So 258 in - 68 in makes 190 in or 4.82m which makes sense as the normal SM-6 has to have some kind of interface for the MK.72 booster which makes it longer than the SM-2 (except the SM-2 Block IV's). But it could also be one of the other SM-6 specific parts "fault".

How many times do you guys wanne debate about the length?

www.navy.mil

Standard Missile

Standard Missile 2 (SM-2) is the U.S Navy's primary surface-to-air air defense weapon. It is an integral part of the AEGIS Weapon System (AWS) aboard Ticonderoga-class cruisers and Arleigh Burke-class
www.navy.mil
1000049326.png
1000049322.jpg
 
Last edited:
Yeah you are right TomcatVIP, 174 works out right enough (just done simple mental arithmetic to double check) but I think that range of the AIM-174 could be double the Phoenix with the rocket booster.
 
FighterJock said:
Yeah you are right TomcatVIP, 174 works out right enough (just done simple mental arithmetic to double check) but I think that range of the AIM-174 could be double the Phoenix with the rocket booster.
Click to expand...
I think range is more symbolistic, the Phoenix being already matched today by the D-model of the AMRAAM, hence reflecting more what it was then (remember that the Tomcat scored only one kill during GWI since most Iraqis ran away as soon they saw AWG9 flashing in their RWR)...
 
Last edited:
I remember that as well TomcatVIP, about the Iraqi's running away whenever their RWRs started flashing during Desert Storm because of their previous experience with the Iranian Phoenix missiles launched during the Iran Iraq war back in the 1980s.
 
TomcatViP said:
(remember that the Tomcat scored only one kill during GWI since most Iraqis ran away as soon they saw AW9 flashing in their RWR)...
Click to expand...

FighterJock said:
I remember that as well TomcatVIP, about the Iraqi's running away whenever their RWRs started flashing during Desert Storm because of their previous experience with the Iranian Phoenix missiles launched during the Iran Iraq war back in the 1980s.
Click to expand...
I remember reading that as well.

As soon as the RWR said "AWG-9 detected" the Iraqis ran.
 
I would wonder if the same thing would eventually happen with the AIM-174? Where the enemy would run so as to not to get shot down. I suppose it will only be a matter of time before things like that happen again, where there is a fear factor about the AIM-174.
 
FighterJock said:
I would wonder if the same thing would eventually happen with the AIM-174? Where the enemy would run so as to not to get shot down. I suppose it will only be a matter of time before things like that happen again, where there is a fear factor about the AIM-174.
Click to expand...

The firing platform does not even need to have its radar on; guidance can come from some other plane.
 
Josh_TN said:
The firing platform does not even need to have its radar on; guidance can come from some other plane.
Click to expand...
Like the E2 Hawkeye that is hovering around the carrier group anyways.

Nothing fancy, you detect the Hawkeye radar like you expected and then you get blown out of the sky by a telephone pole dropping in from 100,000ft.
 
Ummm the E-2 Hawkeye is normally orbiting AT LEAST 50nm from the carrier (which usually has its radars off so it can't be easily located). The E-2 is not allowed to loiter where its presence would compromise the CVN's attempt at being invisible.
 
FighterJock said:
I would wonder if the same thing would eventually happen with the AIM-174? Where the enemy would run so as to not to get shot down. I suppose it will only be a matter of time before things like that happen again, where there is a fear factor about the AIM-174.
Click to expand...
Well, it's normal behavior, people tend to try to survive.

Apparently r-37 threat leads to turn away even w/o RWR, on ground control launch warning alone.

In this way, LR AAM role isn't as much of a killer as it is one of sheer suppression weapon; after afterburning on low altitude a plane can't repeat its attack run anyway.
 
Last edited:
BlackBat242 said:
Ummm the E-2 Hawkeye is normally orbiting AT LEAST 50nm from the carrier (which usually has its radars off so it can't be easily located). The E-2 is not allowed to loiter where its presence would compromise the CVN's attempt at being invisible.
Click to expand...
Right, but 50nmi is close enough for "oh, hey, found the carrier group's rough location" (within 1 degree of lat/long)

Because it's also an obvious guess that the Hawkeye will be between the carrier group and the expected bad guys, you can narrow that down a bit more.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Right, but 50nmi is close enough for "oh, hey, found the carrier group's rough location" (within 1 degree of lat/long)

Because it's also an obvious guess that the Hawkeye will be between the carrier group and the expected bad guys, you can narrow that down a bit more.
Click to expand...
It isn't a guarantee - neither distance nor vector.
It's smart to focus search around there, but such an approximate search may end up in Formosa air battle style.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Because it's also an obvious guess that the Hawkeye will be between the carrier group and the expected bad guys, you can narrow that down a bit more.
Click to expand...
Unless the opponent is decoying you deliberatedly, by using, say, a pair of E-2, or placing E-2 away from prime attack vector.
 
Again, the point is that the Hawkeye radar being detected is something that a Bear or H6 is expecting to detect.

Frankly, they're probably looking for that as their other indication of carrier group location after the satellite data.

And now that same Hawkeye radar is guiding in SM6s. Have fun, Bears!
 
Josh_TN said:
Bears are not the issue. PRC satellites are.
Click to expand...
Right. So the Bear/H-6 Badger will have a good idea where the carrier group is.

The point is that any aircraft going after a carrier group will have essentially zero warning before an SM6 comes raining down. (Probably 1-2 SM6 per aircraft coming out to play) They'll detect the expected Hawkeye and that's all the warning they get.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom