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

[Christopher Wang]

I think If they managed make an air launched SM-6 then the rest F-16, F-15, F-35 should all be able to carry it

I could see an F-15 easily carry four SM-6s (Maybe five with a SM-6 suspended from the centreline store pylon).

Weight wise it could carry as many as 7. 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.

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...

As illustrated below by King (1995), each of the F-15E Strike Eagle's weapon stations, including the unused outboard wing stations, was stressed for the following capacity (p. 2-8):

SOURCE: King, D. R. (1995). A Review of Fighter Aircraft Capability for Smart Bombs. Defense Technical Information Center. Retrieved from https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA300588.pdf

For comparison, here is the maximum possible AIM-54 Phoenix loadout for the proposed F-15N-PHX Sea Eagle with six Phoenixes and two to four Sidewinders:

SOURCE: Nash, E. (2023, May 23). The McDonnell Douglas F-15N Sea Eagle. Ed Nash's Military Matters. Retrieved from https://militarymatters.online/forg...donnell-douglas-f-15n-sea-eagle-tomcat-rival/

Note that four of the Sea Eagle's Phoenixes are carried underneath the conformal fuel tanks or CFTs and the Phoenix is shorter and lighter compared to the booster-less Standard missile family. It should also be noted that even though the F-14 Tomcat was designed to carry up to six Phoenixes, it usually only carried two to four missiles.

 

[Firefinder]

It should also be noted that even though the F-14 Tomcat was designed to carry up to six Phoenixes, it usually only carried two to four missiles.

Need to note that was determined by the landing weight limit the Carriers could take. Which would have been the same issue for the Sea Eagle as well.

A F14 can land with all 6 loaded on a runway.

Try that on a Carrier and at best you snapping the wires.

A Sea-15 would have had a similar weight to a F14 once all the needed mods happened, as is a F15E is pretty close when you factor in the bring back fuel and like...

 

[Christopher Wang]

I think If they managed make an air launched SM-6 then the rest F-16, F-15, F-35 should all be able to carry it

As illustrated below by King (1995), each of the F-16 Fighting Falcon's weapon stations was stressed for the following capacity (p. 2-10):

SOURCE: King, D. R. (1995). A Review of Fighter Aircraft Capability for Smart Bombs. Defense Technical Information Center. Retrieved from https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA300588.pdf

If the air-launched SM-6 does enter operational service with the U.S. Air Force, then the F-16 would likely carry two SM-6s underneath the center wing stations. But if the F-16 ends up carrying four SM-6s underneath both the inboard and center wing stations, then it would likely require the use of conformal fuel tanks or CFTs such as the ones used by the F-16C/D Block 50/52 Plus, the F-16E/F Block 60, and the F-16I Sufa.

 

[publiusr]

The Poseidons able to handle these or larger?

 

[TomS]

The Poseidons able to handle these or larger?

They are getting LRASM, which is probably better suited to their role.

 

[Firefinder]

As illustrated below by King (1995), each of the F-16 Fighting Falcon's weapon stations was stressed for the following capacity (p. 2-10):
View attachment 733735
SOURCE: King, D. R. (1995). A Review of Fighter Aircraft Capability for Smart Bombs. Defense Technical Information Center. Retrieved from https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA300588.pdf

If the air-launched SM-6 does enter operational service with the U.S. Air Force, then the F-16 would likely carry two SM-6s underneath the center wing stations. But if the F-16 ends up carrying four SM-6s underneath both the inboard and center wing stations, then it would likely require the use of conformal fuel tanks or CFTs such as the ones used by the F-16C/D Block 50/52 Plus, the F-16E/F Block 60, and the F-16I Sufa.

Honestly at this point you should pull out the F35s, F22 and F18s station limits as well.

While I doubt the 22 will combat carry them due to stealthing reasons.

They might and its likely for the F35 for certain mission sets and there is the old Stealth Spotter Unstealth Missile Truck trick for the F18s.

...
...

Great now wondering if the B21, or tge Rapid Dragon set up can carry these for a "Budget" B1R.

 

[NMaude]

The Poseidons able to handle these or larger?

They could but the platform is not really suited for this role. On the other hand the P-8A might carry some SM-6s if they were being used in their secondary AShM or ASM modes.

 

[totoro]

What sort of speed could a Super Hornet expect carrying 2 AIM-174? Let's say it drops 3 external tanks prior to that. Though again, how realistic is it that for every such launch mission tanks would be sacrificed? Maybe supersonic speeds could be achieved with both a pair of tanks and a pair of 174s?

 

[SK2]

The Poseidons able to handle these or larger?

Or probably MQ-25 with AIM-174? They can be the flanker of Super Hornet

 

[Scott Kenny]

As illustrated below by King (1995), each of the F-15E Strike Eagle's weapon stations, including the unused outboard wing stations, was stressed for the following capacity (p. 2-8):
View attachment 733715
SOURCE: King, D. R. (1995). A Review of Fighter Aircraft Capability for Smart Bombs. Defense Technical Information Center. Retrieved from https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA300588.pdf

Hrm, I stand corrected then. Thought the outer CFT stations could hold more than that!

Eagle IIs are only carrying a max of 7x SM6s, and probably only 6x: 2x on each CFT inner and 1x on each wing. Outer wing pylons would be holding a pair of AMRAAMs or similar.

 

[NMaude]

Eagle IIs are only carrying a max of 7x SM6s, and probably only 6x: 2x on each CFT inner and 1x on each wing. Outer wing pylons would be holding a pair of AMRAAMs or similar.

That's still a LOT of AAMs.

 

[Scott Kenny]

That's still a LOT of AAMs.

I didn't mention the inner wing pylon shoulder rails getting Sidewinders or more AMRAAMs. (evil grin)

My assumption was that this would be an extreme range setup and would likely see all SM6s launched in more or less one volley, with 8x AIM120Ds to backstop leakers.

 

[Moose]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1809280037583225029

View: https://twitter.com/Doha104p3/status/1809280037583225029?t=H9WqPZQwUXyqxcZ5Txt_SQ&s=19

Operational

 

[Forest Green]

Yep, operationally deployed.

U.S. Navy Confirms SM-6 Air Launched Configuration is 'Operationally Deployed'

The SM-6 Air Launched Configuration (ALC), known by its official designation as the AIM-174, is the longest range air-to-air missile ever fielded by the U.S. Navy.

www.navalnews.com

 

[TomS]

Hrm, I stand corrected then. Thought the outer CFT stations could hold more than that!

Eagle IIs are only carrying a max of 7x SM6s, and probably only 6x: 2x on each CFT inner and 1x on each wing. Outer wing pylons would be holding a pair of AMRAAMs or similar.

Come on folks. This SM-6 ALC is going to be a low-density weapon. There are not going to be enough of them to load fighters (much less USAF ones) "wall-to-wall" with it. And likely not enough targets either. It's for sniping high-value targets like AEW birds, not for shooting at enemy fighters.

 

[bobbymike]

View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qaKT1qSRH0Q

 

[bring_it_on]

Scaling production will not be difficult if they want to keep it simple and focused on a single mission. SM-6 capacity is being increased, and we have awarded contracts to qualify a couple of additional SRM sources on the program. We've done a similar ramp on the ESSM, AIM-9, and PAC-3 MSE.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Come on folks. This SM-6 ALC is going to be a low-density weapon. There are not going to be enough of them to load fighters (much less USAF ones) " wall-to-wall" with it. And likely not enough targets either. It's for sniping high-value targets like AEW birds, not for shooting at enemy fighters.

USN might disagree about what you want to shoot them at, they'd certainly be capable of being used like Phoenixes to shoot any Chinese bombers attempting to launch AShCMs.

USAF would likely use them for AWACS and tanker hunting.

The interesting question would be if the MiG31s carrying Kinzhal ALBMs would get within SM6AL range, say if there have been any launches from close to the Polish border...

 

[NMaude]

USAF would likely use them for AWACS and tanker hunting.

That sounds about right but also other aircraft such as Tu-22M Backfires and Tu-95 Bears too. Anyway is there any indication that the USAF is going to use the AIM-174B now that it's in USN service?

 

[Christopher Wang]

If the AIM-174 Standard ERAM does enter operational service with the U.S. Navy and possibly the U.S. Air Force, could it be considered a successor to the AIM-54 Phoenix? Could it also be considered a U.S. counterpart to Russia's Vympel R-37 and Novator KS-172?

 

[eagle]

Regarding the weight of the AIM-174, TWZ has higher resolution images in their article. If you zoom in, you can see the weight is stenciled right under the C/G marking: 1890 +/- 14 lbs.

 

[Training_Dummy]

Come on folks. This SM-6 ALC is going to be a low-density weapon. There are not going to be enough of them to load fighters (much less USAF ones) " wall-to-wall" with it. And likely not enough targets either. It's for sniping high-value targets like AEW birds, not for shooting at enemy fighters.

Exactly. This is a valuable round that the USN covets for many reasons, the ALC version being just the latest. I don’t see the USAF paying up for a new plant to supply their needs, at any rate, that would be three to four years away before that new plant would be close to hitting a 300 AUR/run rate, to say nothing of stressing the motor supply chain.


We also have no idea as to what the AIM-174 conops looks like. To me, targeting high value air targets like tankers and AWACs seem most important followed by being part of a mix of weapons for a coordinated TOT attack mixed in with all kinds of different ordinance with different vectors, thoughtfully orchestrated to buffer overflow the multiple layers of a surface group or high value land target.

 

[Scott Kenny]

View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qaKT1qSRH0Q

Dude is mistaking the total weapon weight pretty greatly. We've figured here that they're a ~1500lb edit: 1900lb weapon, not a 3300lb weapon. 3300lbs being the weight of a RIM-174B with booster. Not sure how heavy the 21" diameter Block 1B version is, but a back-of-the-envelope guess says that the Block 1B version (RIM-174C?) is going to be ~2.4x the volume, so 2.4x the weight wouldn't be out of line as the upper bound. But the electronics and apparently warhead are the same in the Block 1B, so 2.4x is probably high. 2x the weight is probably more accurate for the Block 1B.

And since the booster is 21" its weight won't change for the surface-launched stack weight, guesstimating in the neighborhood of 4800lbs 5600lbs for the Block 1B in surface-launch configuration. Frack, that's a big load!​

So weight wise a Super Hornet could carry 6 of the 13.5" RIM174Bs, but probably wouldn't carry more than 4. 2x fuel tanks, 4x AIM174B, 2x AIM120 on the conformal stations, and 2x AIM9 on the wingtips. Centerline store could be the big Legion IRST pod or another fuel tank, depending on needs.

That sounds about right but also other aircraft such as Tu-22M Backfires and Tu-95 Bears too. Anyway is there any indication that the USAF is going to use the AIM-174B now that it's in USN service?

No indications yet. If the AIM260 really has a 200mi range, then the USAF may skip buying any SM6s as an air-to-air weapon. However, the SM6 is also being used as an SSM by the US Army, where it's pushing hypersonic speeds at impact. So I could see the USAF grabbing SM6s for the 500km range hypersonic role.

Edited due to new data.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Regarding the weight of the AIM-174, TWZ has higher resolution images in their article. If you zoom in, you can see the weight is stenciled right under the C/G marking: 1890 +/- 14 lbs.

Nice find!

And that's heavier than I expected. Also really jacks up the probable weight of the 21" SM6 Block 1B... 21" is 2.4x greater volume than 13.5" diameter, but the electronics and warhead are unchanged from the 13.5" Block 1A so I wouldn't expect the Block 1B to be more than 2x the weight. Which is still on the order of 3800lbs, if the RIM-174B without booster is the same weight as an AIM-174B.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Had a very good spot over in the Super Hornet thread:

Regarding the weight of the AIM-174, TWZ has higher resolution images in their article. If you zoom in, you can see the weight is stenciled right under the C/G marking: 1890 +/- 14 lbs.

Which changes some of my estimates here, of course.

The 21" SM6 Block 1B is now likely to weigh some 3800lbs without the booster, and the total stack weight is likely to hit 5600lbs!

 

[Training_Dummy]

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.



Because it's on the order of 2500lbs without the booster?

Agree but I haven’t seen a plan or funding to upgrade the E/F/G array. Hence my original question. One thing to keep in mind - Block III includes airframe longevity improvements, so Block III is unlikely to be the last word.

 

[Training_Dummy]

(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.

Is that moodiness actually confirmed? I’ve read up on the reason (or lack?) Super Hornet pylons are canterd but it reads apocryphal to my ignorant eyes? Perhaps there are some super bug drivers here who can opine.

 

[totoro]

Block 1b uses a new diameter booster but the rest of the missile remains the same. Which means that the air launched version is not going to profit from it, as it can't use the booster.

 

[kqcke for you]

Block 1b uses a new diameter booster but the rest of the missile remains the same. Which means that the air launched version is not going to profit from it, as it can't use the booster.

No? The Block 1b uses a new main engine which has now the same diameter as the
booster similiar to the SM-3 Block IIa engine. Its replacing the MK 104 DTRM and not the MK 72 booster.

Edit: the picture Shows the Change really good tought we don't know the final design.

 

[NMaude]

Which means that the air launched version is not going to profit from it, as it can't use the booster.

The Mk-72 booster could be used for the AIM-174B if the missile was encapsulated in a 21" diameter jettisonible fairing with a Von Karman profile nose with a strong integrated into the fairing to mount the suspension lug to attach it to the launch pylon.

 

[Forest Green]

Nice find!

And that's heavier than I expected. Also really jacks up the probable weight of the 21" SM6 Block 1B... 21" is 2.4x greater volume than 13.5" diameter, but the electronics and warhead are unchanged from the 13.5" Block 1A so I wouldn't expect the Block 1B to be more than 2x the weight. Which is still on the order of 3800lbs, if the RIM-174B without booster is the same weight as an AIM-174B.

The SM-6 doesn't need pylon interface attachments. That might be where the extra weight comes from. The theoretical weight given by SM-6 - Mk72 was 1,760lbs, so this suggests ~130lbs of interface add-ons for the AIM-174.

 

[totoro]

No? The Block 1b uses a new main engine which has now the same diameter as the
booster similiar to the SM-3 Block IIa engine. Its replacing the MK 104 DTRM and not the MK 72 booster.
View attachment 733817
Edit: the picture Shows the Change really good tought we don't know the final design.

Can you or anyone else actually find a proper source on that? I am having no luck.

Navy To Supersize Its Ultra Versatile SM-6 Missile For Even Longer Range And Higher Speed

The SM-6 is getting a way bigger rocket motor that will allow it to reach even farther than before and enemy ships may be its primary target.

www.twz.com

There is allegedly (according to the above twz.com article) a 2020 dod budget request document which explains more on blk1b but there is simply no link in their article to said document.

Sure, there are various think tanks and blogs mentioning blk 1b being wider, but when it comes to proper sources (US govt or the manufacturer) there doesn't seem to be any mention of the sm6 blk1b in detail.

 

[Blackbuck]

It's my drawing of it, based off of the silhouette shown in the slide on page 8 of this thread.

 

[Forest Green]

Had a very good spot over in the Super Hornet thread:

Which changes some of my estimates here, of course.

The 21" SM6 Block 1B is now likely to weigh some 3800lbs without the booster, and the total stack weight is likely to hit 5600lbs!

Not necessarily, a Mk72 weighs 1,540lbs. That would theoretically put the weight at 1,760lbs but you have added pylon attachment interface weight, which might add 130lbs.

 

[Christopher Wang]

In the RAND monograph Shaking the Heavens and Splitting the Earth, Cliff et al. (2011) assesses the growth of China's PLAAF and provides recommendations on what actions the United States should take in response. One option briefly explored is for a large aircraft such as the Rockwell B-1 Lancer capable of carrying a large number (e.g. 20 or more) of extremely long-range (e.g. 200 nautical miles) air-to-air missiles based on existing airframes such as the Standard SM-2ER / RIM-67 (p. 240).

The problem is that the authors failed to account for the dimensional differences between the the B-1's weapons bays and the proposed missiles. As shown below, the B-1's three weapons bays each have a length of 180 inches or 15 feet. By removing the moveable bulkhead, the forward two weapons bays could be combined into a larger weapons bay of 375 inches or 31.25 feet.


Depending on the variant, the Standard missile family has a length of 21.5 feet with the Mark 72 booster or 15.5 feet without the Mark 72 booster. Thus, the B-1 could only internally carry eight Standard missiles with or without the Mark 72 booster if the forward two weapons bays were combined into one. The B-1 could also possibly carry an additional six to twelve Standard missiles using the six external hardpoints.

The B-1 Lancer carrying and firing eight AIM-174 Standard ERAMs internally plus six to twelve additional AIM-174s externally would be an impressive sight.

REFERENCE: Cliff, R. et al. (2011). Shaking the Heavens and Splitting the Earth: Chinese Air Force Employment Concepts in the 21st Century. RAND Corporation. Retrieved from https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monographs/2011/RAND_MG915.pdf

 

[sferrin]

Don't forget the 14 external hard points.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Block 1b uses a new diameter booster but the rest of the missile remains the same. Which means that the air launched version is not going to profit from it, as it can't use the booster.

No, the Block 1b uses the same Mk72 booster with a new rocket motor in the missile proper that is 21" in diameter. Keeps the same warhead and electronics.

I'd hope that the Block 1b gets a bigger radar antenna to take advantage of the extra body diameter instead of keeping the 13.5" antenna, but at least the plans-as-described don't include that. 21" body diameter is getting into nearly a fighter class radar!

 

[Scott Kenny]

Not necessarily, a Mk72 weighs 1,540lbs. That would theoretically put the weight at 1,760lbs but you have added pylon attachment interface weight, which might add 130lbs.

Okay, that might put the Block 1B total stack at ~5100lbs instead (~3500lbs of Block 1B missile and 1540lbs of Mk72 booster). Still a big damn missile to be hot launching!

 

[NMaude]

No, the Block 1b uses the same Mk72 booster with a new rocket motor in the missile proper that is 21" in diameter. Keeps the same warhead and electronics.

I'd hope that the Block 1b gets a bigger radar antenna to take advantage of the extra body diameter instead of keeping the 13.5" antenna, but at least the plans-as-described don't include that. 21" body diameter is getting into nearly a fighter class radar!

So does mean the Block-1B would look like the ESSM Block-I on steroids with the 13.5" seeker and warhead section mated to the 21" DTRM by a conical adapter section?

 

[TomS]

USN might disagree about what you want to shoot them at, they'd certainly be capable of being used like Phoenixes to shoot any Chinese bombers attempting to launch AShCMs.:

Thing is, roles shifted, even before the F-14 retired. AEGIS ships are the main fleet air defense assets, and now have missiles with enough range to cover a large chunk of the Outer Air Battle area. We should not expect a version of "Dance of the Vampires" with China throwing multi-regimental Badger raids at a USN carrier task force. (If China was thinking that way, they'd have fielded a Backfire-alike capability, probably.)

The Mk-72 booster could be used for the AIM-174B if the missile was encapsulated in a 21" diameter jettisonible fairing with a Von Karman profile nose with a strong integrated into the fairing to mount the suspension lug to attach it to the launch pylon.

That's now pushing 5000 pounds enclosed (with canister), and the drag profile is kinda terrifying. I don't understand the obsession with boosters here.