Raytheon AIM-424 Malice LRAAM

Ronny said:
Still seem strange that they deliberately get rid of that capability. A dual role missile would be super useful
Click to expand...

It might be that weapon is just not integrated with the F-18E/F for that purpose. It might latently have that capability hardware wise but the F-18 interface is not designed to use it that way. Probably cost more money to do so and I doubt the USN wants to use such an expensive weapon with such a modest warhead for the strike role.
 
Forest Green said:
Would it fit in an F-22?
Click to expand...
The GBU-32 is about 10' long and there is plenty of room forward of the bomb in the bay but the intake starts to encroach more into the bay forward in that area plus the supporting structure, wiring and piping. So maybe is probably correct in terms of fit but then the other question is if it can accept that load there too as it's 500lbs heavier than the GBU-32 and would there be a launcher that can launch it safely out of the bay. My bet is they will be more interested in incorporating it into the F-47 than the Raptor but just my WAG.
 
So did no other reporters actually attend Tailhook this year? Every single report I can find is either explicitly or implicitly referencing the AvWeek article. No one else seems to have seen the same briefing, at all.
 
I've been playing around with my LREW version for ages on the F47/FA-XX speculative art designs so I can say confidently
both could carry 4 AIM424 in (our speced) IWB but that's it. No more room for anything else. If only one is carried then 2 AIM120/260 could be squeezed on the other side for a max load of 2 AIM424 + 4 AIM120/260. Speculatively, 2 more AIM120 could be mounted onto bay doors. But this is unlikely.
 

Attachments

  • 424_2_b.png
    424_2_b.png
    452.3 KB · Views: 192
Defence Updates has put out a short video about the AIM-424A Malice:


A major development has emerged from the Tailhook Association’s convention in Reno, Nevada, where the U.S. Navy has revealed a previously undisclosed air-to-air missile designated the AIM-424 “Malice.”

The AIM-424 Long Range Air-to-Air Missile (LRAAM) is already undergoing testing and is intended to equip several generations of U.S. Navy fighters. Planned platforms include the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, the F-35C Lightning II, and the Navy’s future F/A-XX next-generation fighter.

The Navy has also released imagery providing the first public look at the weapon. One photograph, taken in April, shows an F/A-18E/F operated by Naval Air Test and Evaluation Squadron 23 (VX-23) carrying four of these missiles. A separate image shows the weapon integrated into the internal weapons bay of an F-35C.

The missile’s most striking advertised characteristic is its range of more than 250 nautical miles. That’s more than 285 miles or about 465 km. However, the significance of the AIM-424 extends well beyond that headline figure.​

Let’s take a closer look at what is known about this new weapon and what it could mean for the US Navy’s future air-combat capabilities.
https://www.youtube.com/hashtag/defenseupdates
#defenseupdates #AIM424 #usweapons

Chapters:
0:00 TITLE
00:11 INTRODUCTION
01:35 SPONSORSHIP - NordVPN
02:09 BACKGROUND
04:50 THE PLAN
07:19 ANALYSIS
Click to expand...
 
If motor of AIM-424 is the same as that of AIM-174, is MK104 rocket motor. With a weight reduction of 180 kilograms, Dv can be increased to 1770m/s.
And based on public data and photo, it can be inferred that the wingspan is very small, which should be a compromise for installing it into the bay of F-35. This is very bad for a 600 kilogram missile, the 'small wing heavy missile'.
But Raytheon say maneuverability is better than JATM is somewhat funny
 
Factor said:
If motor of AIM-424 is the same as that of AIM-174, is MK104 rocket motor. With a weight reduction of 180 kilograms, Dv can be increased to 1770m/s.
And based on public data and photo, it can be inferred that the wingspan is very small, which should be a compromise for installing it into the bay of F-35. This is very bad for a 600 kilogram missile, the 'small wing heavy missile'.
Click to expand...
Seem to be common theme nowadays, PL-17, AIM-424, Izdeliye 810 all seem to have pretty small wing. Seem like they concluded that speed is more important than turn rate for VLAAM
Factor said:
But Raytheon say maneuverability is better than JATM is somewhat funny
Click to expand...
JATM also has small wing tbh
 
bring_it_on said:
Reply: https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/thaad-development.18894/post-936919

Let's get back on discussing the AIM-424 here so TWZ/Sandboxx has something good to steal for their next piece
Click to expand...

Sorry I can only “like”this once.


Gosh you can imagine why I didn’t post even more detail on this program before….

The enemy is the clickbait. Not an Asian country.


Anyway yeah no surface attack priority because that costs money in testing etc and the Navy is not interested.
 
Regarding the said-so small wings inherently degrading manoeuvrability, remember:
  1. the missile uses powder propulsion hence the missile weight at close-in distance will be much lighter than at launch. Size of wing is irrelevant when compared to launch weight.
  2. the missile trajectory in the close-in approach is not planar to the target. It falls down on it with a tremendous speed advantage making trajectory correction minimal*.
  3. Point 1&2 illustrate how the the straked wing isn't much participating to trajectory correction, much of it comes from roll in axis and yaw in plane, more demanding on cruciform tails.
*Picture yourself stomping on a running bug, do you really need an agile ankle able to follow it 360?
 
quellish said:
Anyway yeah no surface attack priority because that costs money in testing etc and the Navy is not interested.
Click to expand...
Isn’t AIM-174 technically just the SM-6 without MK-72 booster?. I mean same seeker, same processor, same warhead. If SM-6 has already been tested against surface targets, and its seeker can track/guidance itself toward a surface target. What would stop AIM-174 from doing the samething?. Sure maybe the haven’t tested the AIM-174 in that exact role yet but this just seem like the technicality issue at most. Kind of like SLAM-ER probably never tested against a tank, but if you aim it at a tank , the tank will be destroyed.
 
TomcatViP said:
Regarding the said-so small wings inherently degrading manoeuvrability, remember:
  1. the missile uses powder propulsion hence the missile weight at close-in distance will be much lighter than at launch. Size of wing is irrelevant when compared to launch weight.
  2. the missile trajectory in the close-in approach is not planar to the target. It falls down on it with a tremendous speed advantage making trajectory correction minimal*.
  3. Point 1&2 illustrate how the the straked wing isn't much participating to trajectory correction, much of it comes from roll in axis and yaw in plane, more demanding on cruciform tails.
*Picture yourself stomping on a running bug, do you really need an agile ankle able to follow it 360?
Click to expand...
1. This is true for pretty much all BVR missiles I think, even the ancient one
2. If I recall correctly, ballistic arc is pretty common trajectory for all BVR missle since AIM-54
3. Strake is used to provide additional body lift I think. You can pivot the missile orientation with the rear fins. But need lift to change direction. (Kinda the different between pitching and turning)
 
Ronny said:
Isn’t AIM-174 technically just the SM-6 without MK-72 booster?.
Click to expand...

Correct.

Ronny said:
What would stop AIM-174 from doing the samething?. Sure maybe the haven’t tested the AIM-174 in that exact role yet but this just seem like the technicality issue at most.
Click to expand...

As the USN already has anti-ship and air-to-ground missiles it probably just wants the AIM-174B strictly as an LRAAM, adding a secondary air-to-ground role would be a distraction.

Ronny said:
2. If I recall correctly, ballistic arc is pretty common trajectory for all BVR missile since AIM-54
Click to expand...

I strongly suspect that the AIM-47A Super Falcon precursor to the AIM-54 also used a lofted trajectory for long-range shots.
 
NMaude said:
As the USN already has anti-ship and air-to-ground missiles it probably just wants the AIM-174B strictly as an LRAAM, adding a secondary air-to-ground role would be a distraction.
Click to expand...
Honestly, I suspect that the software for surface attack is still present in the missile. But mission wise AIM-174s would not be used for anything but VLRAAM work.


NMaude said:
I strongly suspect that the AIM-47A Super Falcon precursor to the AIM-54 also used a lofted trajectory for long-range shots.
Click to expand...
I am fairly sure that they did loft somewhat. But when you're starting out at 74,000ft there's not a lot of climbing needed.
 
Ronny said:
Isn’t AIM-174 technically just the SM-6 without MK-72 booster?. I mean same seeker, same processor, same warhead. If SM-6 has already been tested against surface targets, and its seeker can track/guidance itself toward a surface target. What would stop AIM-174 from doing the samething?. Sure maybe the haven’t tested the AIM-174 in that exact role yet but this just seem like the technicality issue at most. Kind of like SLAM-ER probably never tested against a tank, but if you aim it at a tank , the tank will be destroyed.
Click to expand...

The missile is probably more or less capable of the surface strike mission but the aircraft software might not have been integrated with that mission/usage. I am willing to bet AIM-174 exists in small numbers only for Pacific deployments, given fact it was seen as a temporary fix. It probably is too expensive and too few in number to use for the strike mission.
 
Last edited:
Scott Kenny said:
I am fairly sure that they did loft somewhat. But when you're starting out at 74,000ft there's not a lot of climbing needed.
Click to expand...


View: https://youtu.be/WYKbPPRFE6o

(fished out with difficulty among all the garbage cut and re-cut worthless online video - The original quality footage is still somewhere that I don't know)
 
Last edited:
I don't like the "Malice" name, how about "Super Phoenix" or "Phoenix II" instead?
 
NMaude said:
I don't like the "Malice" name, how about "Super Phoenix" or "Phoenix II" instead?
Click to expand...
I would bet it's some sort of acronym. Like "Midcourse Adaptable Long range Interception Capability Experiment" (or Effector), which I just pulled fresh from my backside.

I mean if we're just going to make up non-sequential designations why not go all in and make up some silly backronym while we're at it? It's not like it matters; I bet the users will informally name it something else anyway.
 
The DoD has increasingly started to force some ridiculous “cool” sound acronyms onto it programs. It would not surprise me if there was some tortured phrasing as per above. I might have gone with “Advanced” and definitely “Effector” is in vogue, but that sounds like fluent DoD speak, with a slight LockMart accent…
 
Factor said:
If motor of AIM-424 is the same as that of AIM-174, is MK104 rocket motor. With a weight reduction of 180 kilograms, Dv can be increased to 1770m/s.
And based on public data and photo, it can be inferred that the wingspan is very small, which should be a compromise for installing it into the bay of F-35. This is very bad for a 600 kilogram missile, the 'small wing heavy missile'.
But Raytheon say maneuverability is better than JATM is somewhat funny
Click to expand...

Assuming 442kg of propellant for both missiles, AIM-174 is ~388kg at burnout vs ~238kg for AIM-424, so AIM-174 would need ~63% more lift to match the agility of AIM-424.
 
Factor said:
But Raytheon say maneuverability is better than JATM is somewhat funny
Click to expand...
When did Raytheon say this? I can’t find it, and the maneuverability statement is only that the strakes allow it to “retain significant amounts of maneuverability even with its larger size compared to” AMRAAM and JATM, which is the same as more maneuverable.
 
I think someone posted above more maneuverable than AIM-120, but in any case I doubt it matters. This is not a weapon designed with fighters in mind. If it uses the mk104 as suspected, it is a single pulse that will have very low energy at the end of its trajectory. For a HALE UAV/MPA/AWACS/Tanker/bomber, that really does not matter
 
Josh_TN said:
I think someone posted above more maneuverable than AIM-120, but in any case I doubt it matters. This is not a weapon designed with fighters in mind. If it uses the mk104 as suspected, it is a single pulse that will have very low energy at the end of its trajectory. For a HALE UAV/MPA/AWACS/Tanker/bomber, that really does not matter
Click to expand...
SM6 has a Boost+Sustain burn profile in its Mk104.
 
Talking about endgame performance is just WAS at this point.

As for the name, is anyone really surprised by anything since F-47??? Luckily Raider is not only historical but also sounds “warfighter” ish.
 
Josh_TN said:
I think someone posted above more maneuverable than AIM-120, but in any case I doubt it matters. This is not a weapon designed with fighters in mind. If it uses the mk104 as suspected, it is a single pulse that will have very low energy at the end of its trajectory. For a HALE UAV/MPA/AWACS/Tanker/bomber, that really does not matter
Click to expand...
It would be pretty wild if they didn't figure out that a missile purpose built for long range air to air needs to have sufficient end game energy to accomplish that LR AAM role. I don't think either the Navy, nor Raytheon are that stupid to have not thought of this. We will have to wait for more details to emerge on both the specifications, and concept of employment for the system.
 
bring_it_on said:
It would be pretty wild if they didn't figure out that a missile purpose built for long range air to air needs to have sufficient end game energy to accomplish that LR AAM role. I don't think either the Navy, nor Raytheon are that stupid to have not thought of this. We will have to wait for more details to emerge on both the specifications, and concept of employment for the system.
Click to expand...

I just think for USN purposes extreme end game maneuverability does not matter. Their target sets are not that maneuverable. How much energy do you need to engage a Y-20, let alone a Y-8 turbo prop?

The fact that this seems to be a USN specific program, not a USN/USAF effort like AIM-260, along with the rushed AIM-174, makes me think the USN requirements for long range engagement were more simple and/or more pressing and that the USAF is going for something completely different for its LRAAM.
 
All modern LRAAMs can engage fighters. The question is conditions when they can do it.
R-37Ms in Ukraine demonstrated fighters kills, even when they were doing hard maneuvers. But they can't keep high energy state down low(in thick air) for long of they're forced to maneuver. If ground control didn't screw up, it's possible to survive them with relative ease.
 
Ainen said:
All modern LRAAMs can engage fighters. The question is conditions when they can do it.
R-37Ms in Ukraine demonstrated fighters kills, even when they were doing hard maneuvers. But they can't keep high energy state down low(in thick air) for long of they're forced to maneuver. If ground control didn't screw up, it's possible to survive them with relative ease.
Click to expand...

Any missile is dangerous, but some are designed around being different levels of dangerous against different target sets, and they make compromises to reach those goals. AIM-54 was a pretty mediocre weapon against fighters, though it did tend to make fighters run in USN and Iranian use against Iraqis aircraft. But it was not optimized for that role; it was an anti bomber weapon.

I think the USN AIM-174/424 are similarly sized and optimized for large aircraft. And I think that’s why the USAF seems to have no involvement in either.

That doesn’t mean AIM-424 can not threaten a fighter aircraft; it just means it probably was not optimized for that target set.
 
CastleBravo said:
Assuming 442kg of propellant for both missiles, AIM-174 is ~388kg at burnout vs ~238kg for AIM-424, so AIM-174 would need ~63% more lift to match the agility of AIM-424.
Click to expand...
AIM-174 probably have 3-4 times more strakes area compared to AIM-424
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom