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

The AEGIS data link format is likely a USN work product. I can't imagine any reason to publish details of the format.
 
TomS said:
The AEGIS data link format is likely a USN work product.
Click to expand...

That makes sense.

TomS said:
I can't imagine any reason to publish details of the format.
Click to expand...

No surprise there but if we know who worked on the datalink project then a USPTO patent search based on their names can be used.For example after I read Ron Westrum's excellent book on the Sidewinder I was able to use the names mentioned in the book to track a LOT of Sidewinder related patents.
 
NMaude said:
They are causing unnecessary drag resulting reduction of the Super Hornet's range.
Click to expand...
It's a complicated story. According to the NFM-200, many ordnances (Harpoon, HARM, JSOW, Mk 82, Paveway) produce higher drag on the Rhino, especially considering the interference drags with multiple stores.

However one thing to think is that the drag index of the four SUU-79 is equal to the four SUU-63, and some weapons/racks/launchers produce higher drag on Hornet. So it's probably a bit of a mixed bag; that's why we love aerodynamics.
 
Last edited:
That seems weird…that leaves the A2A missile as largely or completely subsonic if it is an hour long flight time. Though nothing in that graphic actually indicates flight time; not sure where the one hour figure comes from. It is interesting that B-1 is depicted as the shooter.
 
Josh_TN said:
That seems weird…that leaves the A2A missile as largely or completely subsonic if it is an hour long flight time. Though nothing in that graphic actually indicates flight time; not sure where the one hour figure comes from. It is interesting that B-1 is depicted as the shooter.
Click to expand...

The number is from the full paper, where it is used to illustrate all the factors that go into their model. It's not really meant to be a realistic example, just one they were able to walk through the math on in public.
 
Forest Green said:
Once GMTI satellites have full coverage every A2G missile will be an ARM.
Click to expand...

Are you saying that all radar-guided AAMs have broadband receiver circuitry in their seekers? I'm fairly certain that active-radar seeker receivers are narrowband in comparison.
 
Last edited:
I think the point is that if you know the exact position of a target emitter, you can give that to a missile and it does not need to be an ARM at all. SIAW will likely be the primary defense suppression weapon of the UsAF and it likely has no RF guidance, outside a terminal active seeker.
 
Most modern Missiles have inbuilt multiband receivers for data links, both the AIM9 and 120 has such as well as the SM6, so be shock if the Aim174 doesn't.

Most have a high precision INS as well which again the AIM174 needs to work.

Be fairly simple to ensure that everything can talk to each other and basically have a setting that turns the weapon into a dumb-fire-go-here-explode type weapon. Even in the launch plane cockpit.
 
Firefinder said:
Most modern Missiles have inbuilt multiband receivers for data links, both the AIM9 and 120 has such as well as the SM6, so be shock if the Aim174 doesn't.
Click to expand...

Datalinks aren't the same as broadband anti-radiation seekers.
 
NMaude said:
Datalinks aren't the same as broadband anti-radiation seekers.
Click to expand...
You don't need broadband antiradiation seekers if you have the equivalent of the JDAM guidance program.

"Fly to this GPS coordinate."

Just send the coordinates via datalink. AAMs have a very big blast radius, by design. And tend to have a frag pattern perpendicular to the missile body, so a near-vertical terminal dive will catch a large area of the SAM battery in the pattern.
 
Forest Green said:
It may have a name:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1970149966703419705
View: https://x.com/enc_spotter/status/1970149966703419705
Click to expand...

Howdy; I'm the author of the Wikipedia page for the AIM-174B. A couple of... shall we say, "concerned parties" reached-out to me and advised me that the name is not "Gunslinger." That it is the program name, which a Navy PAO mistook for the missile name, and we have Naval Aviation 2025 as a result (if you'll note, NA2025 states "Gunslinger AIM-174B," not "AIM-174B Gunslinger;" not definitive proof but definitely mildly odd). Then, we have some secondary sources picking-up the name, and the rest is history (Wikipedia only cares what the secondary sources say, for better or for worse). Given that it has been six months and the USN has not issued any sort of retraction nor correction, said sources may have very well have named themselves a missile.

Personally, I think it's a cool name, though I would have preferred "Phoenix II" or perhaps another mythological bird.
 
TheSublimeGoose said:
100%. The secondary sources took to it quite quickly.
Click to expand...
The problem these days is that not only do secondary sources muddy the waters for people who kinda know what they are looking for; they swamp the AIs with hits such that one person making something up, in the absence of any clear source refuting it, because part of the LLM. I am willing to bet you could convince an AI of all kinds of modest factual alterations if they were subtle enough to pass the smell test of amateurs while being “newsworthy” enough to get picked up by lots of secondary sources (which themselves maybe AIs). It probably would not work for established facts like the diameter of the moon, but for anything not already explicitly defined, one could probably fill the space with any semi reasonable value or datum one wanted, with enough effort.
 
Josh_TN said:
The problem these days is that not only do secondary sources muddy the waters for people who kinda know what they are looking for; they swamp the AIs with hits such that one person making something up, in the absence of any clear source refuting it, because part of the LLM. I am willing to bet you could convince an AI of all kinds of modest factual alterations if they were subtle enough to pass the smell test of amateurs while being “newsworthy” enough to get picked up by lots of secondary sources (which themselves maybe AIs). It probably would not work for established facts like the diameter of the moon, but for anything not already explicitly defined, one could probably fill the space with any semi reasonable value or datum one wanted, with enough effort.
Click to expand...
The current generation of LLMs are absolute trash when it comes to things like this. I asked Bing AI to find me sources for something. It returned with several that I had never been able to find, despite years of searching. I looked at them; Turns-out, they were COMPLETELY fabricated. Straight-up just made them up. Several, not just one. Wild.

When confronted, it stated it was "illustrating" what would be "appropriate" sources and the made-up sources were simply "placeholders" despite giving me zero indication this was the case in its initial response. See attached screenshots.
 

Attachments

  • bing1.png
    bing1.png
    152.3 KB · Views: 39
  • bing2.png
    bing2.png
    72.9 KB · Views: 38
Last edited:
TheSublimeGoose said:
The current generation of LLMs are absolute trash when it comes to things like this. I asked Bing AI to find me sources for something. It returned with several that I had never been able to find, despite years of searching. I looked at them; Turns-out, they were COMPLETELY fabricated. Straight-up just made them up. Several, not just one. Wild.

When confronted, it stated it was "illustrating" what would be "appropriate" sources and the made-up sources were simply "placeholders" despite giving me zero indication this was the case in its initial response. See attached screenshots.
Click to expand...

LLMs, like search engines, do not curate or validate the quality of their sources.

They also cannot smell baloney
 
quellish said:
LLMs, like search engines, do not curate or validate the quality of their sources.

They also cannot smell baloney
Click to expand...

Google at its peak, when the internet was more focused on the fire than the shadows, provided a profoundly important low level processing feature that was an incredibly additive to some people.

Now, the internet (because its search, social media, connectivity, comms) is so AI filtered, too many levels of processing happen away from the human brain in an effort to help all people.
 
TheSublimeGoose said:
I asked Bing AI to find me sources for something. It returned with several that I had never been able to find, despite years of searching. I looked at them; Turns-out, they were COMPLETELY fabricated. Straight-up just made them up. Several, not just one. Wild.
Click to expand...
It's important to realise AI LLMs are essentially just predictive text with all the restrictions turned off, not any kind of intelligent thought. You wanted references, so it gave you some. It doesn't care whether they exist or not, just that it answered your query.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom