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

I suspect what would've happened if DEFCON1 had been reached some of the F-14s would've been on standby on the CVN's deck with a full load of six AIM-54s ready to launch on a few minutes notice.
 
NMaude said:
I suspect what would've happened if DEFCON1 had been reached some of the F-14s would've been on standby on the CVN's deck with a full load of six AIM-54s ready to launch on a few minutes notice.
Click to expand...

Given the low numbers of AIM-54 indicated by the sources already posted, I do not see why. The primary target of Phoenix was recon/path finder bombers in much smaller numbers, and if the raid itself had to engaged I question the motivation of MV-AF pilots to keep flying towards their targets after receiving a dozen or two AAMs. A four tap of AIM-54 followed by a pair of AIM7 at what was left seems perfectly threatening, without such a narrow window of bring back weight.
 
Will they demonstrate an AIM-174 getting fired live or otherwise during the course of Grey Flag 2024?
 

Attachments

  • IMG_6089.jpeg
    IMG_6089.jpeg
    336.4 KB · Views: 102
  • IMG_6090.jpeg
    IMG_6090.jpeg
    343.8 KB · Views: 85
  • IMG_6091.jpeg
    IMG_6091.jpeg
    216.4 KB · Views: 96
  • IMG_6092.jpeg
    IMG_6092.jpeg
    132.6 KB · Views: 79
  • IMG_6093.jpeg
    IMG_6093.jpeg
    216.4 KB · Views: 70
  • IMG_6094.jpeg
    IMG_6094.jpeg
    166.5 KB · Views: 87
  • IMG_6095.jpeg
    IMG_6095.jpeg
    188.4 KB · Views: 104
Hilarious that the crew names on the bird are for a VADM and CAPT. How often do they get to go flying, really?
 
NMaude said:
It has occurred to me that there is a way to launch an AIM-174B with the Mk-72 launch-booster attached and that's to use a variation of the proposed LM ALHTK which used IIRC a modified F-15 600 USGallon drop-tank as a launch-pod.
Click to expand...

I think there would be all sorts of suspension, CoG, drag, and separation issues with such a configuration. Plus it would nearly double the launch weight and it is not clear to me the missile would be structurally/thermally able to handle the burnout speed that an air launch + mk72 booster impart.

Plus I cannot imagine there is any pressing need.
 
Josh_TN said:
I think there would be all sorts of suspension, CoG, drag, and separation issues with such a configuration.
Click to expand...

There'd likely be some issues but I have no doubt they could be resolved, now as to drag the way I understand how the ALHTK pod works as that there are two ventral doors that opened just before launch (The missile is then ejected) and after the missile has been launched the pod is jettisoned.

Josh_TN said:
it is not clear to me the missile would be structurally/thermally able to handle the burnout speed that an air launch + mk72 booster impart.
Click to expand...

The AIM-174B in this configuration would no doubt be launched at high altitude (40,000-50,000Ft) and by the time its' Mk-104 DTRM burnout out it would be at ~100,000-110,000Ft high (Like the AIM-54 it would be launched on a lofted semi-ballistic trajectory) where the air is very thin.

Josh_TN said:
Plus I cannot imagine there is any pressing need.
Click to expand...

Just pointing out how it could be done but there are other alternative methods that I've thought of for an air-launched SM-6 with the full stack.
 
It should be noted that SM-6 is much larger and heavier than PAC-3, even without the booster. A fuel tank type store is out of the question.
 
NMaude said:
Have you seen how big an F-15's 600-gallon drop-tank is? They're huge.
Click to expand...

I cannot find a hard length figure for the 600 gallon but it appears the 300 is ~13 feet long. SM-6 sans booster is already longer than that. The whole stack approaches 20 feet.
 
Josh_TN said:
I cannot find a hard length figure for the 600 gallon but it appears the 300 is ~13 feet long. SM-6 sans booster is already longer than that. The whole stack approaches 20 feet.
Click to expand...

Well in that case if such an approach were used involving a modified 600 gallon drop-tank then it would a matter of adding a cylinder-section to stretch it.
 
Josh_TN said:
I think there would be all sorts of suspension, CoG, drag, and separation issues with such a configuration. Plus it would nearly double the launch weight and it is not clear to me the missile would be structurally/thermally able to handle the burnout speed that an air launch + mk72 booster impart.

Plus I cannot imagine there is any pressing need.
Click to expand...
We know he is using DTRM, which means there is a first stage high thrust and a second stage maintenance. In fact, the second stage of most DTRMs generally cannot continue to accelerate the missile, and this process even slows down slowly, unless at high altitudes
 
ACDDC said:
We know he is using DTRM, which means there is a first stage high thrust and a second stage maintenance. In fact, the second stage of most DTRMs generally cannot continue to accelerate the missile, and this process even slows down slowly, unless at high altitudes
Click to expand...
And since the SM-6 lofts way up above 100,000ft elevation to minimize aerodynamic drag, I'd assume that the missile maintains speed until the terminal dive onto target. At least as long as the Sustainer is burning.
 
It certainly does look like the AMRAAM but who knows what the AIM-260 looks like as there have been no official photos of it being released lancer21.
 
lancer21 said:
Is it sure that the AMRAAM like missile is not the AIM-260 in those pictures? (yes i know it was claimed it was just a finless AIM-120).
Click to expand...
On a mobile phone it doesn’t seem like that missile that has the ring of hexagonal shaped ports or apertures that JATM has but it could be a captive carry surrogate for training?
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom