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

TomS said:
That's really not going to give you much of a boost. And it's designed for surface launch from a tube; air launch with that booster would be entirely unknown territory.
Click to expand...

Moreover there is no need. SM-6 sans mk72 should have a roughly SM-2 performance - 100mi/150km range against an air target (at least against multi engine aircraft) from the surface. Air launch at high subsonic should roughly double that, possibly more, especially against turbo prop (Y-8 based) aircraft.

EDIT: the better next step would Blk 2. The interface and guidance should be identical, assuming the physical linkage would still be F-18 compatible. Though that is probably more range than anyone even needs and a much heavier store.
 
Josh_TN said:
EDIT: the better next step would Blk 2. The interface and guidance should be identical, assuming the physical linkage would still be F-18 compatible. Though that is probably more range than anyone even needs and a much heavier store.
Click to expand...
Also much draggier -- my very rough estimate is that Block II would have about twice the frontal area, so twice the drag. That's a lot to ask of a Super Bug.
 
TomS said:
Also much draggier -- my very rough estimate is that Block II would have about twice the frontal area, so twice the drag. That's a lot to ask of a Super Bug.
Click to expand...
What is this Block II being referred to here? I am not aware of a SM-6 Block II but I haven't been following the program too closely.
 
Josh_TN said:
Moreover there is no need. SM-6 sans mk72 should have a roughly SM-2 performance - 100mi/150km range against an air target (at least against multi engine aircraft) from the surface. Air launch at high subsonic should roughly double that, possibly more, especially against turbo prop (Y-8 based) aircraft.
Click to expand...
SM-2 has 170km range, I also feel 2x is conservative. A HAWK SAM or ESSM has a range of only 50km, an AIM-54C has a range of ~200km. SL-AMRAAM - 40km, AIM-120D - 160km.
Josh_TN said:
The physical missile itself I would say almost certainly, though there likely are issues with aircraft integration. SM-6 can accept target updates from other platforms, so perhaps F-18s could fire them and they could accept a surface target update from some other platform as a work around.
Click to expand...
Would the SM-6's SARH mode also work for PRH?

sferrin said:
If only they had a decent platform to carry it. A Super Hornet with a pair of those is basically:

View attachment 733529
Click to expand...
They should weigh about 1,500lb each (guess based on SM-2), so 4 AIM-120s each.
 
Colonial-Marine said:
What is this Block II being referred to here? I am not aware of a SM-6 Block II but I haven't been following the program too closely.
Click to expand...

We slipped up. There is a full-caliber SM-6, but it's Block IB, not Block II. No SM-6 Block II announced yet, AFAIK.
 
Last edited:
Training_Dummy said:
Are you sure? I looked before I posted and came across several articles stating the -79(v)4 is the first GaN based radar for US fighters. Obviously the standard -79 is GaA based. I couldn't come across any articles on Block III behind low observability, TTNT, IRST/center line tank, comms.... thanks in advance
Click to expand...

I think you are correct. When the use of GaN in the (V)4 radar was announced back in 2021, Raytheon said that applying the tech to the Super Hornet was "the next logical step" but I can't find anything official stating that it is actually being done.

 
Training_Dummy said:
Are you sure? I looked before I posted and came across several articles stating the -79(v)4 is the first GaN based radar for US fighters. Obviously the standard -79 is GaA based. I couldn't come across any articles on Block III behind low observability, TTNT, IRST/center line tank, comms.... thanks in advance
Click to expand...
I believe-79(v)4 is scalable.
 
Ainen said:
After 20 years F/A-18E is finally getting its AAAM. :)
Though with interesting (potential) dual-purpose capabilities.
Click to expand...
Sorry but you can't shoot down (at least reliably) ballistic and hypersonic missiles with fighter-borne radars even if they're AESA-based.

Also, I reckon the Superbug can only carry 4 of these, which wouldn't be substantial in a Pacific fight, bear in mind that these are also way more expensive than regular AMRAAMs and the Navy only has a limited stock of these anyway.

The intention here is to clearly shoot down the PLA's intel aircraft but they're better off adding an anti-radiation seeker and a booster to the AMRAAM for this specific role.

Edit: Also, all of China's AEW aircraft have AESA Radars which are also LPIR; so I have no idea how the seeker would perform in such an environment.
 
Last edited:
sferrin said:
If only they had a decent platform to carry it. A Super Hornet with a pair of those is basically:

View attachment 733529
Click to expand...

The F/A-18E is a lot more manoeuvrable than the F6Dplus it can defend itself once all of the SM-6s have been fired.

TomS said:
That's really not going to give you much of a boost.
Click to expand...

I'd agree if you're talking about a surface launch (But it would see be a significant boost albeit not as much compared to the Mk-72) but IMO it would for an air launch.

TomS said:
And it's designed for surface launch from a tube; air launch with that booster would be entirely unknown territory.
Click to expand...

It would need some modifications done to the booster's fins for high-speed air carriage and the adapter that mates it to the missile would no doubt need to be beefed up to handle aerodynamic loads.
 
As mentioned in that thread, this sounds like a deliberate unveiling of a new capability. I would not be at all surprised if they do use it in the SINKEX, just to make a point.
 
TomS said:
Confirmed or speculated?
Click to expand...

I thought it was confirmed, but it is only speculated.

So based on the recent Army-Recognition article, it seems certain an air-launched SM-6 exists and was used at a recent RIMPAC exercise.

It's speculation though as to if air-launched SM-6 is being looked at for the anti-surface role and if they will be tested at SINKEX.
 
Last edited:
Maybe with its large nose you can cram in a better anti-stealth defense.

Clearly it has a big bang.
 
snne said:
Sorry but you can't shoot down (at least reliably) ballistic and hypersonic missiles with fighter-borne radars even if they're AESA-based.
Click to expand...
I mostly meant anti-ship and surface strike.
Under internal guidance can be a problem indeed, but should be doable under NIFC-CA.
It's certainly greatly(and flexibly) extends ABM footprint this way.
snne said:
The intention here is to clearly shoot down the PLA's intel aircraft but they're better off adding an anti-radiation seeker and a booster to the AMRAAM for this specific role.
Click to expand...
Maybe, but it appears that beefing up sm-6(or sm-2 blk.IIIc?) was faster.

My guess is the prime targets are the same as last time (almost literally) - H-6 bombers, and maybe high supersonic reconnaissance rocket planes. I.e. already "omnirole" superbug is now a missileer, too.

Something is wrong with purpose-built missiles here, it honestly starts smelling sparrow.
Where USAF dreams big, navy gets things done.
 
Why'd it take so long for the Navy to actually mount SM-6s on an airborne platform? F-15EX seems ripe for it.
 
Training_Dummy said:
I thought only the legacy hornets are getting GaN TRM based radars?
Click to expand...
I thought the point was to get all the Bugs, Legacy and Super alike, using the same radar? It's a logistics thing, only needing one school for radar techs.


NUSNA_Moebius said:
Why'd it take so long for the Navy to actually mount SM-6s on an airborne platform? F-15EX seems ripe for it.
Click to expand...
Because it's on the order of 2500lbs 2000lbs without the booster? (fixed weight)
 
Last edited:
Scott Kenny said:
Why? SM6Blk1B does everything that SM4 was ever supposed to do. And more.
Click to expand...

Just a thought, the SM-4 was supposed to have been built from old RIM-66s. So I think it's worth looking at if it can be implemented fairly quickly and inexpensively, this a missile that would be of benefit to the Ukrainians and it would save the cost of having to de-mil old SM-1s.

Edit: I checked and they were supposed to be made from old RIM-66 SM-1s.
 
Last edited:
snne said:
Sorry but you can't shoot down (at least reliably) ballistic and hypersonic missiles with fighter-borne radars even if they're AESA-based.
Click to expand...
You could if they use ship radar for guidance... in theory.

Scott Kenny said:
Because it's on the order of 2500lbs without the booster?
Click to expand...
More like 1,500lb minus booster:

Mk 72

Mk 72
www.astronautix.com www.astronautix.com
en.wikipedia.org

RIM-174 Standard ERAM - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org

RIM-66 Standard - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org


More news:
https://twitter.com/x/status/1808626258252812667
View: https://x.com/TheAviationist/status/1808626258252812667
 
NUSNA_Moebius said:
Why'd it take so long for the Navy to actually mount SM-6s on an airborne platform? F-15EX seems ripe for it.
Click to expand...
(1)Missile probably is very different structurally from the original. SM-6 wasn't designed to get a mighty side kick, for aircraft it's norm.
(2)Integration of a networked missile into a very different environment, and not exactly the newest one(1990s architecture)
(3)F/A-18E is known to be moody in terms of payload separation, and here we're dropping really heavy payloads, not originally designed with this in mind.
(4)Objectively speaking, navair is actually doing it on time.
 
NMaude said:
I could see an F-15 easily carry four SM-6s (Maybe five with a SM-6 suspended from the centreline store pylon).
Click to expand...
Weight wise it could carry as many as (edit, I can't math) 7 11. Centerline, 4x on each CFT, and 2 under the wings. Might even be able to carry 2 more on the outer wing pylons, I'm not sure about their weight limits. (edit: this is incorrect!)

But I'd expect the F-15EX to have that big IRST pod on the centerline, and I'm not sure about total length available on the CFTs. Without the booster, an SM6 is about 4.7m long. So having the SM6s on the front and rear spots on the CFTs and the center CFT spots empty. Though now I wonder if there's enough space between the two rails on the CFTs for a ~42" wingspan weapon...

Edit: And I stand corrected about the numbers on the CFTs. Only two per CFT, one one each wing, and maybe one on centerline that is competing with the big IRST pod. 6 or 7 total, probably 6.
 
Last edited:
Scott Kenny said:
Was not expecting the booster to outweigh the missile...
Click to expand...
Well the whole SM-6 is 3,300lb, so minus the booster (1,540lb), it should weigh ~1,760lb. Then again an SM-2 Blk III only weighs 1,558lbs, so maybe there is weight associated with the booster attachment itself (interstage stuff). It should be somewhere amongst those two figures though. It's also possible the interstage stuff has some length associated with it. Is an SM-6 minus booster basically an SM-2 Blk III?
 
Last edited:
Scott Kenny said:
now I wonder if there's enough space between the two rails on the CFTs for a ~42" wingspan weapon...
Click to expand...

So what exactly is the wingspan of the SM-6's strakes?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
NMaude said:
So what exactly is the wingspan of the SM-6's strakes?
Click to expand...
Strakes are something close to 30" wingspan, tail fins are 42" on the Standard-ARM.

So maybe you could stagger the upper and lower missiles on the CFTs (if they aren't staggered already).
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom