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

eagle said:
I really don't think so. Do you have a pic/video showing a Hornet landing on a carrier with even a single Harpoon? The heaviest single store carried on landing I could find is a 1000 lbs JDAM.
So my guess is the AIM-174 is too heavy. Which is an interesting challenge for the USN... the F-14 could at least bring back 2 AIM-54 iirc.
Click to expand...

I don´t think it´s a real challenge. They certainly have the experience to scale upon.

iu
 
Last edited:
Ainen said:
(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.
Click to expand...

I suspect most of the weight increase is beefing up the structure of the missile and systems to enable flight on an aircraft. SAM's might be stressed for a one time load from launch. But they're not designed for regular extreme temperature change, lots of bumbs, g loads, aerodynamic loads and constant moves from mounted on an aircraft then return to magazines etc. Even missiles designed for aerial carriage have limits on how many times they can be carried before needing strip down and rebuild.

One question I don't see asked is that this is clearly a relatively quick and comparatively easy answer for the USN against Chinese long range threats in the Pacific. It's a sensible re-use of an existing weapon (though with I suspect a lot more change, cost and work than many seem to think). But...is it a short term measure? What does this say about USN support for other US long range air to air missiles under development? AIM-260 you would have to assume would be safe because of the fact it should match the AIM-120 size constraints. Does this mean USN has no interest in LREW for example?
 
Last edited:
bring_it_on said:
1. What is LREW specifically?
2. Has there ever been a mention of it being a joint program?
3. Is it even a missile program or just a technology effort?
Click to expand...

Presumably the USAF isn't going to be left behind . They also need an ultra long missile (though with F-22 perhaps that need is lessened to an extent). Raytheon and Boeing have reacted after all to AFRL's call
 
SO in other words, we simply don't know what LREW even is at this moment?
 
bring_it_on said:
SO in other words, we simply don't know what LREW even is at this moment?
Click to expand...

IMO it's worth questioning whether LREW is still a thing, in the classical sense of being a large missile, given DARPA's LongShot effort, which uses a JASSM-ish item to forward deploy regular sized air-to-air missiles like AMRAAM or presumably, someday, JATM.
 
books said:
IMO it's worth questioning whether LREW is still a thing,
Click to expand...
Well, we simply don't know. I hope its still around and developing technology for a highly optimized long range weapon but unless folks have gone digging and found recent progress on it, we simply don't know if it is still funded and part of any future plans.
 
I suspect long term that hypersonic air breathers will fill the same role as AIM-174, for both USAF and USN. It could possibly be HACM and HALO, or else weapons dedicated to the role. Scramjets likely would lack the maneuverability to engage a fighter but should be capable against multi engine aircraft.
 
NMaude said:
Those were retired at the end of the Cold War.

I can see the USAF using the AIM-174B from the F-15 (And maybe the F-16) as an interim long-range AAM until the AIM-260 is in widespread service.
Click to expand...
Theoretically if you swapped the AIM-174B for an SM-3 Blk IB second stage, it could be used as an AL-ASAT weapon.
 
Yellow Palace said:
Long-Range Engagement Weapon. It's a classified program, so we don't know much about it beyond the name.
Click to expand...

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.
 
I find it quite funny if not delightful that, after all the shit it took as a "least capable replacement for the Tomcat, boooohoooo" the Super Hornet pulled that rabbit out of its hat and - boom, forget AIM-54 Phoenix: Superbug has a 230 miles range AAM ! A pity Tom Cruise couldn't use it in Top Gun 2, he wouldn't have needed a Tomcat against those pesky Su-57s... since he flew a SuperBug early in the movie.
It only took 30 years (almost) since its first flight in 1995...
 
FighterJock said:
It would be interesting to compare the AIM-174 with the PL-17 at least range wise, that is if any data is available publicly for the AIM-174.
Click to expand...

There is a fair amount of data for the SM-2, and the SM-6 sans mk72 booster probably has similar performance. There is however no public performance info for the PL-17 that I'm aware of, outside range estimates based on size. I suspect performance is roughly similar.
 
FighterJock said:
It would be interesting to compare the AIM-174 with the PL-17 at least range wise, that is if any data is available publicly for the AIM-174.
Click to expand...
You could take sizes and give a general estimation of performance as a percentage of size(?) if PL-17 size is known or could be estimated... I don't know if that could be any more accurate than the aim-174 range "estimations" where people are just doubling the surface launched range of the ERAM SM-6 though lol
 
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...
Don't you have to know what to ask for though? And how does one find that out? I'd think there's more to it than filling out a FOIA that says, "gimme any available video footage of HiBEX". Maybe the first FOIA is for a list of any documents on HiBEX?
 
sferrin said:
Don't you have to know what to ask for though? And how does one find that out? I'd think there's more to it than filling out a FOIA that says, "gimme any available video footage of HiBEX". Maybe the first FOIA is for a list of any documents on HiBEX?
Click to expand...

If you want to hang anything off an airplane a central organization manages that.

Want to know how many SDBs a B-2 can carry? Ask and they will tell you.
 
Without firm dimensions on PL-17 any comparison involves a lot of guesswork, though something that jumps out at me is the lack of midbody wings or strakes on the Chinese missile. SM-6 aero surfaces contribute to its range, the PL needs to make it all the way on fuel load alone.
 
timmymagic said:
I suspect most of the weight increase is beefing up the structure of the missile and systems to enable flight on an aircraft. SAM's might be stressed for a one time load from launch. But they're not designed for regular extreme temperature change, lots of bumbs, g loads, aerodynamic loads and constant moves from mounted on an aircraft then return to magazines etc. Even missiles designed for aerial carriage have limits on how many times they can be carried before needing strip down and rebuild.

One question I don't see asked is that this is clearly a relatively quick and comparatively easy answer for the USN against Chinese long range threats in the Pacific. It's a sensible re-use of an existing weapon (though with I suspect a lot more change, cost and work than many seem to think). But...is it a short term measure? What does this say about USN support for other US long range air to air missiles under development? AIM-260 you would have to assume would be safe because of the fact it should match the AIM-120 size constraints. Does this mean USN has no interest in LREW for example?
Click to expand...
I'm a bit doubtful this is the case because the AGM-78 Standard ARM was roughly the same weight as the SM-1MR it was based on, and the AIM-97 Seekbat seems to have been about the same. The weight of the latest Blocks of the SM-2MR would seem to be about 1,550 lb, and I would have guessed that the SM-6 without the booster would be about the same weight. I guess I was mistaken.

I'm also left wondering if this is just an interim solution or not. I'd agree that's it's a sensible repurpose of the SM-6 but in the long-term perhaps it would be preferrable to have a missile using a rocket/ramjet setup similar to that of the Hughes AAAM or Meteor.
 
TomcatViP said:
I don´t think it´s a real challenge. They certainly have the experience to scale upon.
Click to expand...
The question is whether a Super Hornet can land on a carrier with stores heavier than 1000 lbs. That picture shows an A-6 in flight, not a SH landing on a carrier... :rolleyes:
 
eagle said:
The question is whether a Super Hornet can land on a carrier with stores heavier than 1000 lbs. That picture shows an A-6 in flight, not a SH landing on a carrier... :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Why would they go through the trouble to make it so AIM-174 could be returned to the carrier if a Super Hornet couldn't do it?
 
quellish said:
If you want to hang anything off an airplane a central organization manages that.

Want to know how many SDBs a B-2 can carry? Ask and they will tell you.
Click to expand...
Of course they would. That's public information.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
eagle said:
The question is whether a Super Hornet can land on a carrier with stores heavier than 1000 lbs. That picture shows an A-6 in flight, not a SH landing on a carrier... :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
The Rino has a 9,000lb bring back weight. They aren’t jettisoning 20,000 dollar unused JDAM.
 
sferrin said:
Why would they go through the trouble to make it so AIM-174 could be returned to the carrier if a Super Hornet couldn't do it?
Click to expand...

Well they have multiple weapons that can't be brought back. Why bother with those then?

I'm not saying AIM-174 @ 1890 lbs is definitely impossible to be brought back. But there is no evidence to suggest anything heavier than a Mk 83 has ever been brought back...
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom