Raytheon AIM-424 Malice LRAAM

So is this AIM-424 a(nother) USN exclusive bay capable weapon (F-35C, F/A-XX?), or is it to be used by USAF as well (F-35A, F-47)?
 
JS23 said:
Anyone else clock that 680 kg is also the publicly listed load limit on the F-35B middle wing hardpoints?
Click to expand...

I hadn't thought about that but 1,500lb sounds about right.
 
Last edited:
Scott Kenny said:
ESSM has been active seeker since the Block 2 version in 2020.

So it's Phoenix strikes back.
Click to expand...
If you check the graphics I've fished out from other threads, it really looks like ESSM. Hughes missiles are decades beyond any necromancy. ;)
Ozair said:
Given it can fit the F-35C bay it would also fit F-35A and perhaps even F-35B so I expect it will become a tri-service weapon.
Click to expand...
It's logical, but quite often USAF skip or drop NIH weapons they don't consider essential.
"Even" AIM-260 is many years away for the F-35. May as well be seen as a niche fleet defense/offense need.
 
AIM-424 LRAAM "Malice"
While integration with the F-15EX is physically feasible in terms of payload capacity, the AIM-424 LRAAM "Malice" is primarily targeted for integration with the F/A-18E/F, F-35C, and the future F/A-XX.
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot_2026_0823_154728.png
    Screenshot_2026_0823_154728.png
    85.3 KB · Views: 218
  • HQXr-EjbIAAISNZ.png
    HQXr-EjbIAAISNZ.png
    176.2 KB · Views: 173
So this is a LRAAM exclusive for the US Navy, that fits inside the F-35C, made by Raytheon but it isn't neither the LREW nor the AMRAAM-AXE. Looks like an AIM-174B (also made by Raytheon) with a smaller guidance and warhead section to make it 2 feet shorter and with reduced wingspan. If it has the same Mk-104 rocket motor as the AIM-174 then it makes sense that it will have even longer range.
But if this isn't the LREW it means that the USAF still has it's own LRAAM program also developed by Raytheon meant for the F-15EX and possibly F-47.
Well, at least it isn't called Joint something
 
Big_Zukini said:
Yes, but I asked in the context of the assumption it may have a ballistic trajectory. Would they still be useful in that case?
Click to expand...
Yes. it's entirely dependent on the mission set. An anti air ballistic missile is quite novel and existing fielded missiles would not be a reliable cue on its performance. An anti air missile may need finer midcourse travel than a ground strike missile.
But note that Malice being an anti air ALBM is entirely my uninformed speculation.
 
yeetmahboi said:
Yes. it's entirely dependent on the mission set. An anti air ballistic missile is quite novel and existing fielded missiles would not be a reliable cue on its performance. An anti air missile may need finer midcourse travel than a ground strike missile.
But note that Malice being an anti air ALBM is entirely my uninformed speculation.
Click to expand...
Honestly (and this may have been already said here) it seems more like an interim solution pending the conclusion of LRAAM/AMRAAM-AXE to me. In the same vein as AIM-174B but targeted specifically at F-35 and F/A-XX with F-18 as a kinda-sorta afterthought in the whole process.

If I were to delve into some uninformed speculation of my own (see: vibes) I'd wager to say it probably lofts stupid high (a lot higher than AMRAAM or maybe even JATM, though obviously JATM's data is still way classified afaik) to get a ton of range and energy before descending. Really extends that engagement envelope to the max. Not quite ballistic, more like... quasi-ballistic? I guess missiles already do that at long range though...

But that's just my two cents as an enthusiast who spends an above-average amount of time getting 'tistic about missiles and such.
 
I wonder if there are issues putting it on stations 2/10 on the SH. Not weight. Maybe separation or clearance issues? I would be nice to max external fuel and weapons load.
 
bring_it_on said:
When were these said interviews given?
Click to expand...
Panel: Speed to Fleet: Prioritizing Capabilities to the Fleet
https://www.westconference.org/west26/public/Content.aspx?ID=116729&sortMenu=101006

Curiously, the video of this panel was removed from youtube, I seem to recall watching it. I wonder if anyone has the full transcript. Fortunately TWZ quoted this panel.
“It exists,” Navy Rear Adm. Keith Hash, head of NAVAIR’s Naval Air Warfare Center Weapons Division (NAWCWD), said during a panel discussion at the WEST 2025 conference in January when asked about the new air-launched version of the SM-6. “That’s an operational capability. And, as you can see, that one being revealed and shown into the area, there are many more behind [it], things that we’re doing there, making sure that we are staying ahead of the conflict, making sure that we’re prepared for the fight that’s going on. And those activities and that development is active and strong.”
Click to expand...
https://www.twz.com/air/secretive-a...-fire-testing-surged-last-year-with-navy-help

And:
“Clearly we recognize that we’ve got to find opportunities to increase reach and range for our weapons,” Navy Rear Adm. Michael “Buzz” Donnelly, then director of the Air Warfare Division (N98) within the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, said at the Navy League’s annual Sea Air Space symposium in April 2025. “We’re doing it in air-to-air. We just recently fielded the air-launched SM-6, or the AIM-174, that we’re capable of carrying off the F-18 Super Hornet. And we’ll look at increasing range and incrementing beyond that.”
Click to expand...
https://www.twz.com/air/hunt-for-an...an-down-enemy-radar-planes-kicked-off-by-navy
 
joshjosh said:
Curiously, the video of this panel was removed from youtube, I seem to recall watching it. I wonder if anyone has the full transcript. Fortunately TWZ quoted this panel.
Click to expand...
I have the video in full and the clip in question can be found here.

Setting that aside, this came up here as an interim capability, with more optimized form factors in the works, going back to at least 2024 if not earlier. Hat tip to @quellish for following these efforts so closely.
 
AIM-424 Long-Range Air-to-Air Missile (LRAAM) "Malice"

In terms of payload capacity, integration with the F-15EX is physically entirely feasible. The Long-Range Kill Chain Weapon (LRKCW—i.e., the F-15EX) program is scheduled for completion in 2027, implying a strong likelihood that the AIM-424 will be deployed on the F-15EX; the AIM-174B also falls within this scope.

(The primary platform is the Navy; it has currently been confirmed that the AIM-174B is carried solely by Navy F/A-18E/F fighters.)

If this content falls outside the scope of the topic, I will delete it immediately. Thank you.
 

Attachments

  • Gvp5JkBXwAACtZ4.jpg
    Gvp5JkBXwAACtZ4.jpg
    349.2 KB · Views: 224
joshjosh said:
Curiously, the video of this panel was removed from youtube, I seem to recall watching it.
Click to expand...
Strike that. This is the panel: Carrier Strike Groups Versus the Future Threat: Will We Be Ready?
View: https://youtu.be/Mqg_LpzgPBA


I thought it was odd that this panel has the exact same panelists as the one with the relevant quote, but the youtube transcript didn't return any of the keywords I was looking for. Scrubbed through manually and found the quote.
 
I'm calling it now, I think the AIM-424 uses the same Mk-104 rocket motor as the AIM-174B.
The same way the AIM-260 managed to have a smaller warhead and guidance section to fit a larger motor in an AMRAAM form factor the AIM-434 did so to fit in the F-35C by replacing the 64kg warhead with something that is less overkill for air to air.

The Mk-104 is 13.5 inches in diameter and 9.5 feet long, the AIM-424 is 13.5 inches in diameter and 13.5 feet long. This leaves 4 feet for the nosecone, guidance section and warhead.
The Mk-104 is already used in several of the Navy's SAMs, the AIM-174B and is in constant development to improve it, it doesn't sound crazy to me that they would find yet another use for it.
1787489874646.png 1787489888358.png 1787489942597.png
 
Solidus said:
I'm calling it now, I think the AIM-424 uses the same Mk-104 rocket motor as the AIM-174B.
The same way the AIM-260 managed to have a smaller warhead and guidance section to fit a larger motor in an AMRAAM form factor the AIM-434 did so to fit in the F-35C by replacing the 64kg warhead with something that is less overkill for air to air.

The Mk-104 is 13.5 inches in diameter and 9.5 feet long, the AIM-424 is 13.5 inches in diameter and 13.5 feet long. This leaves 4 feet for the nosecone, guidance section and warhead.
The Mk-104 is already used in several of the Navy's SAMs, the AIM-174B and is in constant development to improve it, it doesn't sound crazy to me that they would find yet another use for it.
View attachment 821968View attachment 821969View attachment 821971
Click to expand...
Didnt know Mk 104 had this much propellant, 372kg is quite a lot, a little more than double of Phoenix
 
Solidus said:
The Mk-104 is already used in several of the Navy's SAMs, the AIM-174B and is in constant development to improve it, it doesn't sound crazy to me that they would find yet another use for it.
Click to expand...
I would be surprised if this didn't use the MMK 104. Its a proven motor with established production and now additional source (s) is being stood up for it with an eye on expanded production, shorter lead time and performance improvement. Given the several hundred pounds of weight reduction on the AIM-424 over the AIM-174B this should offer quite a bit of improvement in performance if its still using hte same motor as it.
 
Couldn't it be like the missile from that old DARPA program, the TTT (Triple target terminator)?
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom