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

While I'm glad to see this missile entering wider service, I can't help but cringe a bit when I see a Super Hornet loaded up with four of them from an angle like that. It shows very clearly how much the pylons are canted outwards. Maybe the drag penalty isn't as awful as I imagine it to be.
 
Josh_TN said:
No one is spending any money changing it.
Click to expand...

It shouldn't cost much money to modify the design of the pylons and remanufacture existing pylons/build new ones.

sesame2002 said:
I wonder if the Aster 30 too could be converted to an air-to-air missile for the Rafale and Eurofighter
Click to expand...

It probably wouldn't take much to modify it for air-launched carriage, the main thing would be eliminating its' launch-booster.
 
NMaude said:
It probably wouldn't take much to modify it for air-launched carriage, the main thing would be eliminating its' launch-booster.
Click to expand...
They can probably even keep the booster since even with it it's still lighter than the aim-174
 
NMaude said:
It shouldn't cost much money to modify the design of the pylons and remanufacture existing pylons/build new ones.



It probably wouldn't take much to modify it for air-launched carriage, the main thing would be eliminating its' launch-booster.
Click to expand...

The pylons can't be modified to sit straight, the attachment points for the pylon in the wing would have to be changed.

This would require changes in the interior wing structure... on . every . single . Super Hornet!

And would require re-qualification of the aircraft and its flight-control software, with running out the certified software as an update - on . every . single . Super Hornet!
 
sesame2002 said:
They can probably even keep the booster since even with it it's still lighter than the aim-174
Click to expand...

Maybe but you'd need a new custom launch-pylon to take into account the much larger diameter of the booster.
 
NMaude said:
They are causing unnecessary drag resulting reduction of the Super Hornet's range.
Click to expand...
They are.

It'd also cost an arm and a leg to fix it, as BlackBat pointed out. New wings on EVERY SINGLE BIRD, plus re-testing the FBW and weapons separation for every combination.



EmoBirb said:
Why was that design choice taken to begin with? It strikes me as rather odd.
Click to expand...
Combined response:
Ronny said:
reduce RCS probably
Click to expand...
Boeing's computer sims showed a stores separation issue if the pylons were straight. As in, stores striking the airframe and crashing the plane level "issue".

So the first few Super Bugs were built with skewed pylons, and flight tested, and weapons certified, all the paperwork needed to get the Super Bug into IOC.

Then they fed the Legacy Hornet shape into the same computer sim and it predicted a similar stores separation issue, that had never been seen in 30something years of Hornet ops.

Bad computer model.
 
BlackBat242 said:
The pylons can't be modified to sit straight, the attachment points for the pylon in the wing would have to be changed.

This would require changes in the interior wing structure... on . every . single . Super Hornet!

And would require re-qualification of the aircraft and its flight-control software, with running out the certified software as an update - on . every . single . Super Hornet!
Click to expand...


Sweet cheese and crackers ! Reminds me when I built 1/72 scale aircraft models ; that ackward moment when you think you've (proudly !) finished and then some horribly bad detail - not seen before, of course - completely ruins the day.

More pointedly : imagine building a 1/72 scale Super Hornet and then making a mistake with the wing pylons, but one that can't be fixed without massive surgery and paint job. So bad that a second SH kit would have to be bought and butchered to save the first one.

Crazy to think it happened to the real, 1/1 scale plane. What a stupid blunder !
 
Last edited:
Scott Kenny said:
Boeing's computer sims showed a stores separation issue if the pylons were straight. As in, stores striking the airframe and crashing the plane level "issue".

So the first few Super Bugs were built with skewed pylons, and flight tested, and weapons certified, all the paperwork needed to get the Super Bug into IOC.

Then they fed the Legacy Hornet shape into the same computer sim and it predicted a similar stores separation issue, that had never been seen in 30something years of Hornet ops.

Bad computer model.
Click to expand...
I should add that Boeing did say "oops" and offered to correct the wings, but Big Navy said no. I'm assuming that Boeing's offer to correct the wings was at USGov expense.
 
Scott Kenny said:
I should add that Boeing did say "oops" and offered to correct the wings, but Big Navy said no. I'm assuming that Boeing's offer to correct the wings was at USGov expense.
Click to expand...

And, this being in the Post-USSR-collapse Bush41-Clinton-era "Peace Dividend" years, going back to Congress for the funds to buy the corrected wings would certainly have resulted in purchases of Super Hornets being cut to keep the expense "budget-neutral".
 
NMaude said:
It probably wouldn't take much to modify it for air-launched carriage, the main thing would be eliminating its' launch-booster.
Click to expand...
As in every similar case, it's a full redesign. SAMs, especially ones that live in carefully conditioned and sealed VLS transport/launch containers, aren't built for external carriage and half a ton sidekick to the middle.
Then will come its wings, which will prevent it's normal use from eurofighter...
Plus I don't think plane will replace booster in this case, just too much booster for a rather short and thick missile.
 
Last edited:
Ainen said:
SAMs, especially ones that live in carefully conditioned and sealed VLS transport/launch containers, aren't built for external carriage and half a ton sidekick to the middle.
Click to expand...

In that case then have the missile in a sealed, expendable aerodynamic launch-pod (That doubles as a storage container), after the missile is fired out of the pod it's then jettisoned.
 
Ainen said:
Plus I don't think plane will replace booster in this case, just too much booster for a rather short and thick missile.
Click to expand...

The mk72 gets the missile supersonic inside of like 5 seconds, but I think it separates with 6s below several thousand feet. Being launched at 30,000 feet is going to remove a lot of air resistance and gravity loss even if it is subsonic; I am guessing it is relatively equivalent, if not superior.
 
The air resistance of FA18 is too high, coupled with the fact that the missile is mounted obliquely. Can carrying 4 AIM-174 missiles achieve a sea level altitude of 1000kph？Perhaps the F-15E is the excellent carrier for AIM-174, and can even retain the MK72 booster，MK72 even has vector thrust. But this way, each missile will reach 1.5 tons.
 
ACDDC said:
The air resistance of FA18 is too high, coupled with the fact that the missile is mounted obliquely. Can carrying 4 AIM-174 missiles achieve a sea level altitude of 1000kph？
Click to expand...
If it can, not for very long!


ACDDC said:
Perhaps the F-15E is the excellent carrier for AIM-174, and can even retain the MK72 booster，MK72 even has vector thrust. But this way, each missile will reach 1.5 tons.
Click to expand...
The Mk72 booster is 21" in diameter, you'd need some fancy mounting rigs set up to carry that.
 
ACDDC said:
事实上，AIM-174 的射程很难超过 PL-17。PL-17 的机身设计完全是为了减阻和远距离飞行，PL-17 的航母飞行速度比 FA18 快得多，可以大大提高导弹的初始速度。
Click to expand...

This is an English-speaking board so please use English.

Scott Kenny said:
The Mk72 booster is 21" in diameter, you'd need some fancy mounting rigs set up to carry that.
Click to expand...

It could be carried in a pod-type launcher similar to the one proposed for the air-launched version of the PAC-3 or it it could be tube-launched (The storage/launch tube having an internal diameter ~21.5" with folding-strakes to fit the inner-diameter and discarding sabots to support the missile in front of the 21" Mk-72).
 
NMaude said:
This is an English-speaking board so please use English.
Click to expand...
Ill translate for you for the sake of discussion

What they said was essentially that the AIM 174 likely doesnt out range the PL-17 because the PL-17s body/form factor was optimized to reduce drag and traverse long ranges. On top of that the carriers of the PL17 also fly faster than a hornet thereby granting further throw and faster initial speed.
 
Reddington777 said:
What they said was essentially that the AIM 174 likely doesnt out range the PL-17 because the PL-17s body/form factor was optimized to reduce drag and traverse long ranges.
Click to expand...
Hasn't the SM6 gotten a 250nmi/500km surface target? (That may only be miles, not Nautical Miles. Source does not give range in km)

Assuming a 45deg terminal dive, that'd put maximum air target engagement range at ~450km.


Reddington777 said:
On top of that the carriers of the PL17 also fly faster than a hornet thereby granting further throw and faster initial speed.
Click to expand...
When the difference is between M0.8 and M1.5, I'm not sure how much that actually helps. I'm sure it gives a 20-50km boost.

Mach 2.2 helps a bit, roughly doubling range. When the launcher can get up to Mach 3 and 80,000ft, you get ludicrous range boost.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Hasn't the SM6 gotten a 250nmi/500km surface target? (That may only be miles, not Nautical Miles. Source does not give range in km)
Click to expand...

350+ km when AL from 30K ft would be a pretty conservative estimate. You probably run into kill chain and time of flight limitations as opposed to range limitations at those ranges most likely. I think quellish had previously mentioned that the AIM-174B was an 'interim'? capability with something different probably in the works. Performance will only improve now that the Navy (and probably the AF) has confidence that its kill chains can support those long range engagements.
 
I would like to see what the Navy and Air Force have in store to replace the AIM-174 bring_it_on. No doubt it will probably be more advanced and quite possibly have longer range. :D:)
 
bring_it_on said:
350+ km when AL from 30K ft would be a pretty conservative estimate. You probably run into kill chain and time of flight limitations as opposed to range limitations at those ranges most likely. I think quellish had previously mentioned that the AIM-174B was an 'interim'? capability with something different probably in the works. Performance will only improve now that the Navy (and probably the AF) has confidence that its kill chains can support those long range engagements.
Click to expand...
I think we'd be shocked if we knew the range of AIM-174. There was an early test for SM-3, where it had a dummy 3rd stage, and it got tossed a LONG ways. In the video you can hear them counting out the altitude, "320,000ft...330,000ft...340,000ft".
 
www.navalnews.com

Missile Defense Agency Looks to AIM-174B for Counter-Hypersonic Role - Naval News

The AIM-174B Gunslinger has been identified by the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) as a possible Counter-Hypersonic effector
www.navalnews.com www.navalnews.com

A solicitation published by the MDA has directly referenced the SM-6 Air Launched Capability (AIM-174B) as an option for the agency to develop, test, and field new warheads designed for hypersonic missile defense. The solicitation outlines the MDA’s interest in a Phase II proposal, or one that has already demonstrated capability in achieving the performance requirements for high-end missile defense.


The solicitation, titled ‘Prototype Payloads’, identifies the need for ‘wide area effect concepts’ at sea to defend against high speed maneuvering threats. Future deployed area effect concepts would, according to the solicitation, supplement hit-to-kill weapons like the RIM-161, as well as the terminal defense capabilities provided by the RIM-174 and soon-to-be integrated PAC-3 MSE.
Click to expand...
 
NMaude said:
Does anyone here know anything about the SM-2/3/6 data-link? Are there any publicly available online sources with these details?
Click to expand...

It appears to be a proprietary Raytheon protocol:


The new dual band datalink is designed to be a drop-in replacement to the existing communications link currently used in the Standard Missile family airframe, which is focused on S-band.
Click to expand...
 
Kiltonge said:
It appears to be a proprietary Raytheon protocol:

https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/raytheons-datalink-a-new-naval-standard-for-the-standard-07088/
Click to expand...
Seragina said:
Looks like the same old Terrier/Talos/Tartar (3T) link, probably updated with new encryption and all.
Click to expand...

Does anyone know who the engineers were who worked on these two data-links? The reason I'm asking is that if we know their names then that can be used at the USPTO website to locate patents related to the data-links.

On another note Defense Updates has put out a video concerning the AIM-174B's area effect warhead in defending against hypersonic missiles:


Hypersonic weapons defense has been in focus for some time now since the risk is increasing as more and more countries are developing this type of weapon.US military could soon have a new option in this domain and that will air-launched.The Missile Defense Agency (MDA) has singled out the AIM-174B Gunslinger as a potential asset for countering hypersonic threats.​
Click to expand...
According to reports, the platform could be equipped with newly developed “area effect” munition to enhance its effectiveness. A recent MDA solicitation explicitly mentions the SM-6 Air-Launched Capability (AIM-174B) in this context.​
Click to expand...
In this video, Defense Updates analyzes how AIM-174B with ‘area effect’ warhead could be used for hypersonic defense by the US Military?#defenseupdates #aim174B #usmilitary
Click to expand...
Chapters:
0:00 TITLE
00:11 INTRODUCTION
01:03 SPONSORSHIP - NordVPN
01:38 THREAT FROM HYPERSONIC WEAPONS
03:04 AIM-174B
04:51 THE MDA’s NEW WARHEAD SOLICITATION
06:06 ANALYSIS
Click to expand...
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom