Daydreaming the ultimate AIM-174 interceptor

A

Archibald

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
6 June 2006
Messages
12,267
Reaction score
14,554
The AIM-174 is one hell of a huge missile: 6.4 m long with a span of 1.4 m. I was trying to imagine a supersonic, stealth interceptor packing four of them, obviously in an internal missile bay.
It would have a pair of F135s for commonality with the F-35 and tons of thrust.
The missiles however are so enormous, the only way is to space the engines, F-14 style. Even the J-20 missile bay is too puny. And this drive us to the Su-57 general shape. Its missile bays however are sized for R-37s, which are 4.2 m long. The bay according to wikipedia is 0.90 m wide. Not enough for the AIM-174 beast.

en.wikipedia.org

Sukhoi Su-57 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
The Su-57 has two tandem main internal weapon bays each approximately 4.4 m (14.4 ft) long and 0.9 m (3.0 ft) wide
Click to expand...
  • Length: 20.1 m (65 ft 11 in)
  • Wingspan: 14.1 m (46 ft 3 in)
Click to expand...

Do you think the basic Su-57 shape could be scaled up or stretched for at least two AIM-174s ? What do you think ?

3386540ef80e3ae9.jpg


Or perhaps just stretch the J-20 until the missile bay is long enough for at least two AIM-174s ? J-20 is already 22 m long, so stretch the beast to 26 m or more ?




800px-J-20_fighter_%2844040541250%29_%28cropped%29.jpg


en.wikipedia.org

PL-15 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

Length399.6 cm (PL-15E)
 
Last edited:
Archibald said:
The AIM-174 is one hell of a huge missile: 6.4 m long with a span of 1.4 m. I was trying to imagine a supersonic, stealth interceptor packing four of them, obviously in an internal missile bay.
It would have a pair of F135s for commonality with the F-35 and tons of thrust.
The missiles however are so enormous, the only way is to space the engines, F-14 style. Even the J-20 missile bay is too puny. And this drive us to the Su-57 general shape. Its missile bays however are sized for R-37s, which are 4.2 m long. The bay according to wikipedia is 0.90 m wide. Not enough for the AIM-174 beast.
Click to expand...
Aim-174 is only ~4.72 m long as it is only the upper stage of an sm-6 without the booster.
 
Excellent. With the correct dimensions (d'ooooh !!) it works better. For example a slightly stretched Su-57 shape could almost carry two, one in the front bay, the other in the rear.
 
Archibald said:
Excellent. With the correct dimensions (d'ooooh !!) it works better. For example a slightly stretched Su-57 shape could almost carry two, one in the front bay, the other in the rear.
Click to expand...
From the frontal aspect, the Su-57's design is not even as bad as it's claimed to be; give it an S-Duct, make the surfaces more smooth and try to hide the engines a bit more and you got yourself a perfectly fine long range fighter/interceptor that is stealthy enough and is also capable of hauling oversized missiles in its bays. You may also apply a more advanced RAM and it's practically perfect for what the USAF really needs in the Pacific, where you're facing dozens (soon to be hundreds) of advanced AEW aircraft, land based radars and thousands of fighter grade radars. In such a combat environment, even the stealthiest of aircraft will get detected anyway; you just need an aircraft that is able to get close enough to make use of its long/ultra long range missiles (without getting targeted).
 
Last edited:
That's what I had in mind, give or take. To the improvements you mention, I would add a fuselage stretch long enough so that 4*AIM-174 could be carried internally.
 
Makes no sense. The AIM-174 is used for ranges long before stealth comes into play. No need to "hide" them. Keep them on the wings with jettisonable rails that returns the plane to its original form after they are fired. The bays are left for the closer range missiles.

Speed is needed more than stealth.

The F-15EX with the AIM-174 IS the ulitmate interceptor.
 
Archibald said:
Excellent. With the correct dimensions (d'ooooh !!) it works better. For example a slightly stretched Su-57 shape could almost carry two, one in the front bay, the other in the rear.
Click to expand...
Hot Take but i think the AIM-174 is more perfect for an UAV. Afterall just to take 4 with you are hughes bay needed. Instead a smaller UCAV optemised for launching those could do the trick agsinst most targets.
 
Byeman said:
Makes no sense. The AIM-174 is used for ranges long before stealth comes into play. No need to "hide" them. Keep them on the wings with jettisonable rails that returns the plane to its original form after they are fired. The bays are left for the closer range missiles.

Speed is needed more than stealth.

The F-15EX with the AIM-174 IS the ulitmate interceptor.
Click to expand...
It's not supposed to be against other stealth targets, what we're talking about is using it against non-LO targets in an environment where enemy stealth aircraft are still a huge concern. So you can still shoot down valuable targets such as AEW/tanker aircraft and 4.5th gen fighters such as J-10C/J-16/J-11BG even under the threat of other stealth aircraft or PL-17, etc. . The fact that they're not stealthy doesn't make them a lesser threat and by doing so you will counter the threat of enemy stealth by opening gaps in the enemy counter air and enabling friendly non-LO aircraft to participate better in the fight.
 
Last edited:
VTOLicious said:
Nice internal layout!
I have seen your AIM-174B drawing in the other thread. What is the span of the wings and control surfaces?
View attachment 734651
Click to expand...
The Span should be the same as sm-2 so ~1.07m but where did he get the length from.

Edit: MK.72 is only 68 in or 172,72 cm long making sm-6 4,87m long slightly longer than sm-2 actualy to correct myself. Still 23,6cm shorter than what he says.
 
Last edited:
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.
B-1B Weapons Bays.jpg

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
 
snne said:
It's not supposed to be against other stealth targets, what we're talking about is using it against non-LO targets in an environment where enemy stealth aircraft are still a huge concern. So you can still shoot down valuable targets such as AEW/tanker aircraft and 4.5th gen fighters such as J-10C/J-16/J-11BG even under the threat of other stealth aircraft or PL-17, etc. . The fact that they're not stealthy doesn't make them a lesser threat and by doing so you will counter the threat of enemy stealth by opening gaps in the enemy counter air and enabling friendly non-LO aircraft to participate better in the fight.
Click to expand...
I know it is not for stealth targets. But a stealth plane doesn't need to reveal itself with this in a stealth environment when other planes from a standoff can worrying about other targets. Firing off one of these will make a big radar signature.
 
Byeman said:
I know it is not for stealth targets. But a stealth plane doesn't need to reveal itself with this in a stealth environment when other planes from a standoff can worrying about other targets. Firing off one of these will make a big radar signature.
Click to expand...
This is what we were envisioning, we know it's against the nature of low observability to hang one of these under a pylon:

paralay said:
:cool:
Click to expand...

Also, you can't put an F-15EX/J-16 into this high threat environment thinking it'll suffice due to the distance, without expecting the enemy to respond in the same fashion with a missile truck and ULR-AAMs. If you have a missile truck with a big .ss radar and ultra long range missiles; so does your enemy. Everything simply comes full circle with the necessity of stealth aircraft with a longer stick than your opponent; that's how it's been done and that's still how you play this game.

And, even if you've meant firing it off from an internal bay by that, you still have to launch other missiles anyway; in this sense doesn't this also increase the RCS of the plane? Moreover, this procedure happens instantaneously, it doesn't take minutes for the bay doors to open and the missile to launch; so it's effects on the visibility are negligible in the grand scheme of things.
 
Last edited:
snne said:
And, even if you've meant firing it off from an internal bay by that, you still have to launch other missiles anyway; in this sense doesn't this also increase the RCS of the plane? Moreover, this procedure happens instantaneously, it doesn't take minutes for the bay doors to open and the missile to launch; so it's effects on the visibility are negligible in the grand scheme of things.
Click to expand...
not the plane, but missile will show where the aircraft is
 
Byeman said:
not the plane, but missile will show where the aircraft is
Click to expand...
109730426724bddab01fcc6271fc4fbf.gif
snne said:
And, even if you've meant firing it off from an internal bay by that, you still have to launch other missiles anyway; in this sense doesn't this also increase the RCS of the plane? Moreover, this procedure happens instantaneously, it doesn't take minutes for the bay doors to open and the missile to launch; so it's effects on the visibility are negligible in the grand scheme of things.
Click to expand...
 
Not talking about the bay, the missile will have a radar return. And it drops before it fires.
 
It is 3 time wider and 2 times longer than an AMRAAM. Plus it is has a large fin planform compared to other missiles. Tell me why it wouldn't show up on radar once released.

You just keep posting stupid memes but haven't said anything of substance with regard to the missile.
 
Byeman said:
It is 3 time wider
Click to expand...
Nope 1.92... ish the diameter and 2.21 times the wingspan.
Byeman said:
and 2 times longer
Click to expand...
No its around 4.72-4.88m so not even 1.5 times. Even the the normal SM-6 isn't twice as long with 6.6m
Byeman said:
than an AMRAAM. Plus it is has a large fin planform compared to other missiles. Tell me why it wouldn't show up on radar once released.
Click to expand...
It does like every other thing but the question is how important it is to the given job.
 
@paralay you length doesnt at up. It can't be that long as MK.72 is 68 in or 1,72..m long. Same for the wingspan which shouldn't be mutch smaller than SM-2's. Because if you're right then they did big changes compared to no booster and structure modifications for it to be carried on a fighter. 1000047122.jpg
 
Last edited:
I made a drawing based on a photograph. Perhaps the rocket is slightly smaller, because in the photo it is closer to the observer than the plane on which the scale is taken
 
I think the AIM-174B is a useful addition to the arsenal, but I think we could and probably should develop something more ideal. Even by the standards of long-range AAMs it is big and heavy. Just compare it to the AIM-54 Phoenix which was "only" about some 1,000 lb. The Phoenix has a somewhat larger diameter (15in missile body versus 13.5in) but is at least 2½ ft shorter. Such a tradeoff probably makes sense for maximizing numbers for conformal carriage or a large weapons bay.

The AIM-174 almost certainly has a range advantage over both the AIM-54 and the unrealized AIM-152 AAAM which probably makes it suitable hitting specific singular targets (AWACs, tankers, electronic support aircraft) but for engaging flights of multiple targets I think you'd want something a bit smaller/lighter. I'd say not much larger/heavier than the AIM-54 would be ideal.

I keep thinking of something like the Hughes AAAM design which was ramjet powered after the rocket motor was finished. If you took something like that and used clipped or folding fins that might be a good balance between range and the ability to carry 4+ such missiles on a fighter-sized aircraft. Though I wonder if you'd still want to keep the huge AIM-174 around just for that purpose of trying to "snipe" key support aircraft.

I think much will depend on just how capable AIM-260 turns out to be. There is also the USAF's LREW program but it's hard to make any assumptions about that since details are so sparse.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom