Yes, power and gain on the top row are proportional to area (which is proportional to diamater^2) for ESA radars assuming equal modules and that is divided by R^4 on the bottom row. All assuming equal wavelength.
The AIM-120 uses a slot antenna, and the RIM-174 should also use a same type of antenna.
![JR]AKWWJO$WK}4$G$BVQKUW.png](https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/data/attachments/328/328338-b43bb0ad63e06ed32f4790f535bb0740.jpg "JR]AKWWJO$WK}4$G$BVQKUW.png")
Ah, then it will depend on emitter power and diameter and the theory will only hold if emitter power has increased proportional to emitter area.
Has a much bigger antenna, though.
At ~$53/ lb, the combination of 7,500lbs at $400,000 seems really out of the norm by 1-2 order of magnitude. I wonder if it’s a typo and they left out a 0 and meant $4M. At $530/lb it is still really aggressive but somewhat more believable when some are guessing CCAs can be built at $1200/lb and inflation making up some of the difference. Then again maybe that’s why the minion never made it to the light of day…
Probably a variety of systems including CCAs, off-board-sensing and satellite AMTI to enable long shots.
That picture is a pretty big mess so I don't know how reliable it is.
So that spies cannot just look things up.Ok, that's maddening. I used the "SM-6" tag in the DCSA system, but of course this announcement isn't tagged "SM-6", but "DEFENSE SERVICES RELATED TO FUTURE STANDARD MISSILE PRODUCTION".
What's the point in using metadata tags if you don't use them consistently?
So the SM6 (and SM2 Active that is coming) should have about 3x the tracking range of the AMRAAM. And obviously, a 21" antenna in a hypothetical SM6Blk1b or Block 2 is bordering on being a fighter-sized antenna.
maybe added battery for the active seeker?
I think it would gain a lot more weight if diameter changed from 13.5 inches to 21 inches
most likely from adding a strongback to mount the missile to the aircraft pylon instead of the Mk41 launch cell.
At a rough guess, the weight will about double, maybe more. it's 2.4x more by strict math, but that would only apply to the rocket motors. Any suggestions of 21" SM6 have been using the same warhead as the 13.5" version, and only the antenna of the seeker would be larger.
Johns Hopkins APL Technical Digest is the name
Maybe the addition of the Mk125 warhead used in the SM-6 for its anti-ship role? The Mk125 weighs ~250 lbs, and add the strengthening needed for horizontal carry, and you're probably close to a 300 lb increase.
~300lbs of steel doublers so the missile doesn't fold in half.
Fighters currently all have X-band radars not the required S-band. So none of them willl be able to do ABM on their own. A datalink hand off to an Aegis radar is needed. The E-2D might be able to but doubtful atm. Though, it can guide against lesser targets.
IIRC wasn't ALHTK focused on intercepting SRBMs during the boost phase, following the Desert Storm experience of seeing Scuds launching near aircraft.
