Why would it need S-band for AIM-174? They don't need to provide signal for the AIM-174, it's got an active radar seeker. They just need to send it updates until its active radar can take over.
It was BPI and TPI both as highlighted in the video. For most COCOMs. I don't think you can get a purely BPI interceptor that works across all regions and contingencies but with the ALHTK you still had TBM defeat for homeland defense and across all COCOMs. That's where the value lives. In some scenarios against some advesaries it may also give you limited boost / assent phase capability but obviously the physics and time sensitivity may not make them practical for a lot of scenarios where the enemy has strategic depth.
We have new entrants getting qualified for the MK 104 DTRM so the idea that some better performance can be expected isn't without merit.
You still need to update the missile in flight. But I would assume the Navy would have figured that part out on the AIM-174 given the SH lacks an S band transmitter. I believe there was also efforts to integrate the SM-6 on the Zumwalt. While it will need to be qualified for TBM but I don't think that's going to be crazy hard or expensive. Lockheed largely self funded a tri-band (S/C/X) missile communication solution for the PAC-3 MSE to Naval MSE transition so if Raytheon sense it can sell this to the AF or meet this joint force need I'm sure it can be accomodated.
It's not for the missile. It's for detecting the ballistic missile at longer ranges. The AIM174 just gets data from the data link.
There was video years back where an F-35 was tracking a TBM from significant distance.
https://cdn.northropgrumman.com/-/media/wp-content/uploads/HBTSS-Data-Sheet.pdf?v=1.0.0
Dumb question here but why would it be any less than an SM-6? Surely a Super Hornet could give it as much speed/altitude as a Mk72 booster from sea-level.
Depends on how the math works out between "above mach 1 and 10kft" and "below Mach 1 and 30kft"
why would they need S band for ABM though?
Standard Missile data link is S-band.
didn't it have a small X band link too?
F-35 has already done SM-6 hand-offs against other targets.
I'd say Falcon 9 is not a TBM. It's a bloody orbital rocket on it's way up, not down.
SM6 boosts to altitude and about Mach2+.
If you read cosely the E2D and F35 only transmit target data to the ship. The ship however is the one that is connected to the missile.
Right, but SM-6 has shot down MRBMs.
That was never in doubt the question was whether a fighter can do that. That's why I went into the fighter's ability first follwed by possible range issue for sensing and intercept.
Kinetically there shouldn't be much difference, but yeah, if it needs the S-band to pass along the info that would be an issue.
It was a quick adoption not a full scale deveopement. The fact it had AIM120 sensor head & control eased integration nothing ese.
Small incremental progress & customer based requests is how the industry keeps getting contracts. Why otherwise did it took ~60 years until Standard-2 weapons across the board are finally cheaper for mass production/consumption?
Can you share specifics on the AIM-174 development effort. With sourcing.
A summary:
I meant a primary source. Not news articles. To understand what the Navy funded you would need to look at the budget docs, any solicitations the Navy laid out to industry, and other development and/or test documentation. When you provide those, I can reliable establish what the Navy did or did not do as part of its investment into the SM-6 ALC. As I laid out, even the Navy's WVR weapon is now fully networked with a two way data link. It would be strange for the service to buy an extended range missile that the service's fighters cannot even talk to via DL without using an AEGIS vessel or E-2 as an intermediary.
IIRC from SM3 docs, the first stage gets the missile to just over Mach 1 and right around 10,000ft.
Booster spec and functional description
Certainly discussed here, I got the info on the booster in IIRC the SM3 thread.
Thank you!
I wasn't thinking of the Navy or the carrier air wing. I was thinking of the Air Force and it building capability. The MDA and USAF ALHTK looked at a range of TBI and BPI scenarios across PACOM, CENTCOM and Homeland defense scenarios. My broader point about the Navy having a shooter to weapon DL capability on the AIM-174 is however valid. For other missions. The Navy won't go out and pay a premium for a 2-way data link for its sub 20 mile WVR weapon while lacking one for something 5-10 x longer ranged. Unless there's a claim explicitly stating that no such capability was developed, integrated and tested by the Navy, I would assume that it was likely part of the changes made to the SM-6 ALC to get it into the carrier air wing.
Tbh you can do exactly the same with F-15EX.
I wonder if they're too long to fit two under each CFT.
