R/AIM-174 IIRC utilizes a variant of the C3 seeker, albeit with a bigger antenna IIRC.
So the question in a peer question becomes what high value targets are vulnerable to a two or three missile salvo with such a seeker (for the USN I suspect there are more, potentially many more, than for F-47 for example)?
A perusal of the JATM thread would suggest the USAF (just to focus on a single service) may want its high-end very long range weapons to function very differently - be it seeker/fuzing, warhead, terminal agility, propulsion etc etc). After all, as has been discussed above, Gunslinger ain’t cheap.
That said, the USN has been on record several times stating that Gunslinger is an interim solution. Given USN ordnance dimensional limitations and the fact that USAF envisions HACM as an external store, at least for threshold types like EX - at least to my knowledge - this would suggest there is another Joint LRAAM in the pipeline and/or the USN might well be obligated to increment AIM-174 with seeker fuzing comms and effects improvements.
At any rate RIM-174 seems likely to be a workhorse missile for the fleet - analogous to the Super Hornet for CVWs - for some time, and any time some yahoo decides to light off some ballistic missiles and there’s a USN VLS and fire control system nearby - you can go ahead and assume you’re about to burn through a ton of stock.
Edited to say yes im assuming HACM will have some intercept capability, totally speculating.
And who knows what AIM-260 will bring. If we drop max ranges and focus on engagement zones and NEZ outright as well as pound for pound, adjusted by the Murder Factor (maximum number of said missile that can be carried by an aircraft, however operationally stupid and impractical), modified by the squiggle factor of the fraction of the MF that can be carried internally makes for a high bar indeed!
www.armyrecognition.com
