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

[Ainen]

I think they will ultimately adopt one. There is a huge target set of multi engined aircraft that is unprecedented in even in Soviet times

Soviet bomber force (between LRF and MRA VMF) was at points close to 800 aircraft - heavy and strategic aircraft alone.
Plus medium/frontal bomber/fighter bomber force (FA and remaining naval aviation units) of around ~2'000 a/c combined (which is more or less entirety of tactical PLAAF and PLANAF).

The only structure in USAF consistently interested in VLRAAMs was NORAD (SAC - from time to time). Tacair iirc never really bothered.
Even with numbers above, NORAD doesn't get even shot at its own interceptor or weapon system models since mid-1970s. Now, when aerial threat to North America is limited to Russian cruise missiles (China is as of yet negligible), they aren't getting it more certainly than ever. ANG gets updates to its fighter radars, which is adequate counter-play.

GAC ... potentially, but the need is really debatable(what effect AIM-174 brings to a penetrative VLO platform that AIM-260 won't produce at several times lesser weight and space budget?).

US fighter force is fully invested in other direction.

Well, they could now observe Mig-31s shooting down planes from behind the frontline, so their opinion likey changed quite a bit.

Low single digit kills per year at Vietnam-like Pk?
I wonder...

 

[Josh_TN]

Well, they could now observe Mig-31s shooting down planes from behind the frontline, so their opinion likey changed quite a bit.

I suspect F-22s would fulfill the roll equally well., at least with AIM-260. I think if the USAF gets interested in long A2A it will be at even further ranges than existing long range weapons.

 

[Josh_TN]

Soviet bomber force (between LRF and MRA VMF) was at points close to 800 aircraft - heavy and strategic aircraft alone.
Plus medium/frontal bomber/fighter bomber force (FA and remaining naval aviation units) of around ~2'000 a/c combined (which is more or less entirety of tactical PLAAF and PLANAF).

The only structure in USAF consistently interested in VLRAAMs was NORAD (SAC - from time to time). Tacair iirc never really bothered.
Even with numbers above, NORAD doesn't get even shot at its own interceptor or weapon system models since mid-1970s. Now, when aerial threat to North America is limited to Russian cruise missiles (China is as of yet negligible), they aren't getting it more certainly than ever. ANG gets updates to its fighter radars, which is adequate counter-play.

GAC ... potentially, but the need is really debatable(what effect AIM-174 brings to a penetrative VLO platform that AIM-260 won't produce at several times lesser weight and space budget?).

US fighter force is fully invested in other direction.


Low single digit kills per year at Vietnam-like Pk?
I wonder...

Fair enough, there were a lot of Soviet bombers, though I think fighter bombers is pretty clearly outside the definition of multi engined aircraft. Strictly speaking, so would be Tu-22 or Tu-16, though certainly the latter should be vulnerable to any anti AWACS weapon.

I guess I should have specified AEW and ISR aircraft - i think the PRC is well ahead in those roles, and they are of ever greater importance and have ever increasing sensor ranges. More over US abilities to track targets across multiple platforms at extreme ranges is far greater - I think USAF would struggle to find anything to shoot an AIM-174 at outside NORAD airspace or perhaps A-50s over Eastern Europe.

I think NGAD will carry a half dozen AIM-120 sized weapons and that’s it, but I would not rule out F-15s or even B-21s carrying oversized air breathing hypersonic weapons with an air to air capability against large slow targets. I think that could come as soon as HACM.

 

[Ainen]

Fair enough, there were a lot of Soviet bombers, though I think fighter bombers is pretty clearly outside the definition of multi engined aircraft. Strictly speaking, so would be Tu-22 or Tu-16, though certainly the latter should be vulnerable to any anti AWACS weapon.

I guess I should have specified AEW and ISR aircraft - i think the PRC is well ahead in those roles, and they are of ever greater importance and have ever increasing sensor ranges. More over US abilities to track targets across multiple platforms at extreme ranges is far greater - I think USAF would struggle to find anything to shoot an AIM-174 at outside NORAD airspace or perhaps A-50s over Eastern Europe.

Not yet.
Summ of Soviet ISR/ASW/EW types during height of CW(1970-1980s) was around or over 500 non-tactical aircraft(maybe even more with more obscure types like radiation reconnaissance, i just don't know them). PLA sum - at least, for manned ones, - should still be around 150-200, i.e. closer to modern VKS/MA than to Soviet VVS/MA. I don't know PLA drone numbers, with them working as a stand-in for massive fleet of Soviet long range reconnaissance and targeting aircraft, comprehensive picture may differ.

Though it's important to note, that US service dealing with those - that's gotta be USN Navair - did put VLRAAM both back then and now.

But it wasn't and still isn't USAF.
The problem isn't that USAF wouldn't have found anything to fire AIM-174 (or AIM-152, or AIM-54, or AIM-47) at - it's always easier to find target for longer-ranged weapon. The problem is that service aimed at achieving air superiority always aimed at more sure shots; long range shots tend to be misses.
VLRAAMs against non-cooperative target environment are mostly supression/mission abort tools. USAF wants kills.
That means closing to more decisive ranges.

I think NGAD will carry a half dozen AIM-120 sized weapons and that’s it, but I would not rule out F-15s or even B-21s carrying oversized air breathing hypersonic weapons with an air to air capability against large slow targets. I think that could come as soon as HACM.

Let's see, at least per Ukrainian experience i will not consider non-stealth fighters really as in need of forward-pass type weapon as it is often perceived.
And even when it may enable them to fire(under external cue) from beyond the threat zone - such fire will be least effective form of fire support (VLRAAMs are just very visible). CCAs are a better fit.

 

[Christopher Wang]

I wonder if we'll see in the near future the AIM-174B being fired from an F-15?

If that actually happens, it is likely only the newer E and EX models will fire the AIM-174B. As explained by @Scott Kenny, the Strike Eagle and Eagle II could hypothetically carry up to four or five AIM-174Bs underneath the wing, CFT, and centerline pylons. If the older C and D models were upgraded to fire the AIM-174B, they would be limited to carrying two missiles underneath the wings and a possible third underneath the centerline pylon.

 

[Josh_TN]

But it wasn't and still isn't USAF.
The problem isn't that USAF wouldn't have found anything to fire AIM-174 (or AIM-152, or AIM-54, or AIM-47) at - it's always easier to find target for longer-ranged weapon. The problem is that service aimed at achieving air superiority always aimed at more sure shots; long range shots tend to be misses.
VLRAAMs against non-cooperative target environment are mostly supression/mission abort tools. USAF wants kills.
That means closing to more decisive ranges.


Let's see, at least per Ukrainian experience i will not consider non-stealth fighters really as in need of forward-pass type weapon as it is often perceived.
And even when it may enable them to fire(under external cue) from beyond the threat zone - such fire will be least effective form of fire support (VLRAAMs are just very visible). CCAs are a better fit.

I think poor end game characteristics of solid fuel AAMs is exactly why the USA will employ a liquid fueled air breather for the role. Mid course updates will still be necessary, but the flight time of a missile maintaining a steady Mach 5 is going to enable a lot more range and a lot less flight times for a given range. I think CCA is more likely to provide the updates than the actual weapon delivery for high value targets in the opponent rear. If anything I would think F-22 or -47 would be better equipped for a long shot with a MR BVR.

 

[Ronny]

Compatible, but may not exactly the same.

previously, they both use AIM-9X block II, AIM-120. So there is no logical reason for them not to have the same kind of datalink

 

[Scott Kenny]

As far as I know the USN and USAF both use JTIDS.

But does the SM6 use JTIDS? I don't think it does.

 

[Scott Kenny]

If that actually happens, it is likely only the newer E and EX models will fire the AIM-174B. As explained by @Scott Kenny, the Strike Eagle and Eagle II could hypothetically carry up to four or five AIM-174Bs underneath the wing, CFT, and centerline pylons. If the older C and D models were upgraded to fire the AIM-174B, they would be limited to carrying two missiles underneath the wings and a possible third underneath the centerline pylon.

The big IRST (Legion?) pod lives on the centerline pylon, so only four AIM174s.

 

[NMaude]

But does the SM6 use JTIDS? I don't think it does.

Does anyone here know anything about the SM-2/3/6 data-link? Are there any publicly available online sources with these details?

That being would the datalink use the same frequency band, format and coding as the data-links used for the AIM-9X block-II and AIM-120C/D?

 

[Firefinder]

Or for that matter...

Does the Aim174 uses the same datalink gear as the SM6 or is it one of the dozen mods the USN on record saying they change between the two?

 

[Scott Kenny]

Or for that matter...

Does the Aim174 uses the same datalink gear as the SM6 or is it one of the dozen mods the USN on record saying they change between the two?

An excellent question, but I would assume (and we all know what that means) that the AIM174 uses the same datalinks as the RIM174 so that Hawkeyes or whatever could give it midcourse updates.

 

[NMaude]

An excellent question, but I would assume (and we all know what that means) that the AIM174 uses the same datalinks as the RIM174 so that Hawkeyes or whatever could give it midcourse updates.

Wouldn't make sense for the Aim-9X Block-II, AIM-120C/D, RIM-174A and AIM-174B to have a common data-link design along with a common data format?

 

[totallyaverage]

Or for that matter...

Does the Aim174 uses the same datalink gear as the SM6 or is it one of the dozen mods the USN on record saying they change between the two?

AIM-174 cannot use the same weapons links as RIM-174, because the Aegis weapons links is in the wrong band. It almost certainly uses the AIM-120D weapons link.

Integration on other platforms such as the F-15 or F-16 should only really be a matter of funding.

 

[FighterJock]

I cannot wait to see the AIM-174 on the Eagle 2 in that case totallyaverage.

 

[Josh_TN]

The big IRST (Legion?) pod lives on the centerline pylon, so only four AIM174s.

Pretty sure Legion lives on an intake strake like LANTIRN. And it’s optional; doubt it really is of much use at AIM-174 ranges.

But I doubt USAF would ever adopt it or carry more than 2 if it did.

 

[Ronny]

An excellent question, but I would assume (and we all know what that means) that the AIM174 uses the same datalinks as the RIM174 so that Hawkeyes or whatever could give it midcourse updates.

hawkeye doesn't guide RIM-174 directly, it sent data back to the ship actually

 

[Training_Dummy]

Time to refresh myself on CEC-related Block III super hornet upgrades...

 

[Ainen]

I think poor end game characteristics of solid fuel AAMs is exactly why the USA will employ a liquid fueled air breather for the role. Mid course updates will still be necessary, but the flight time of a missile maintaining a steady Mach 5 is going to enable a lot more range and a lot less flight times for a given range. I think CCA is more likely to provide the updates than the actual weapon delivery for high value targets in the opponent rear. If anything I would think F-22 or -47 would be better equipped for a long shot with a MR BVR.

Let's see, but for now(and this now is decades long), only Russian air force consistently likes to fight with VLRAAMs. Other consistent VLRAAM enjoyer is USN - but they had a forced gap between AIM-54 and AIM-174.
Both are services with very prominent interceptor/def-ca mission over large spaces.