It has a designation

And it's at RIMPAC

(X?N?)AIM-174B

https://theaviationist.com/2024/07/03/first-images-super-hornet-carrying-two-sm-6-missiles/

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >0.8m too long for F-35 IWB
    shame

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      >130NM range when surface launched
      Any idea how the planeborne variant will compare?

      That's what Mako is for, eventually. Until then, that's what sensor fusion is for.

      Fun fact some anons might not know, US missile model numbers under the 1963 Tri-Service Rocket and Guided Missile Designation System follow the last missile regardless of type, in contrast to aircraft which under the 1962 Tri-Service Aircraft Designation System which does it by category/type.
      For example, all the missiles ending with -84 are Harpoon variants, while the YF-17 and C-17 are completely different aircraft.
      Thus, the name "AIM-174B" having the same number as RIM-174 is in fact not an asspull for convenience, but actually compliant with the system.

      Neat, thanks anon.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        >130NM range when surface launched
        I don't think the official number is anywhere near accurate, Mk72 booster adds around 900m/s and Mk104 motor at least 1500m/s over a longer period. In comparison AIM-120 gets over 100nmi range from around 1km/s + launching platform speed without a sustainer stage. 5V28E did about 140nmi from around 2450m/s with a sustainer but it was a much bigger, draggy missile and it wasted energy by travelling at Ma=5. Despite that it was still avionics limited, it had enough energy to glide much longer distances. SM-6 should easily be able to reach 200-250nmi if the onboard battery is big enough
        >Any idea how the planeborne variant will compare?
        It doesn't have a booster and employment speeds are likely to be limited to around Ma=1.3-1.4 like with other big missiles and bombs. So even if you account for the fact it will be launched from a higher altitude and less dense air the total energy budget will be lower by ~300m/s lowering the range by about 25%. Napkin math of course

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        >That's what Mako is for, eventually. Until then, that's what sensor fusion is for.
        haha so vaporware cope? lmfao mako is peak US vaporware, par for the course in 2024+

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          Idk why you’re sperging out but the Mako is still currently an advertisement for the AF/Navy from LM.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            >dk why you’re sperging out but the Mako is still currently an advertisement
            i know that^

            so why are we pretending its some deployed weapon or some kind of IRL option, itt?

            • 1 week ago
              Anonymous

              >so why are we pretending its some deployed weapon or some kind of IRL option, itt?

              Because it's /k/. And they are utterly clueless about real world military procurement.

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          >dk why you’re sperging out but the Mako is still currently an advertisement
          i know that^

          so why are we pretending its some deployed weapon or some kind of IRL option, itt?

          NTA but I really love the nervous sweaty cope about US missiles ever since Russia shat the bed and everyone looked at China wondering about those advertised specs they always cite.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            It's really funny to see. That guy could've just asked from the beginning why he thinks Mako has an acquisition path laid out but he couldn't resist seething over US hypersanics lmao.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      Does it fit in the F22?

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        no

  2. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Fun fact some anons might not know, US missile model numbers under the 1963 Tri-Service Rocket and Guided Missile Designation System follow the last missile regardless of type, in contrast to aircraft which under the 1962 Tri-Service Aircraft Designation System which does it by category/type.
    For example, all the missiles ending with -84 are Harpoon variants, while the YF-17 and C-17 are completely different aircraft.
    Thus, the name "AIM-174B" having the same number as RIM-174 is in fact not an asspull for convenience, but actually compliant with the system.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      I may be misunderstanding. How is the AIM-260 the next big missile? Didn't it skip almost 100 numbers?

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        Fair question, but also ask how we went from AIM-7, skipped AIM-8, felt like AIM-9 was appropriate, then suddenly find ourselves at AIM-120?

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          wasn't aim-8 was an experiment with air launch talos

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            >wasn't aim-8 was an experiment with air launch talos
            What the frick were they launching them from, B-52s? Talos's were frick huge, weren't they?
            Still, if it did work they should have given it the moniker "Straightspooler."

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          All kinds of missiles share the numbering system anon

          https://designation-systems.net/dusrm/index.html

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        Sometimes it's non-sequential because they're stupid, or it seems so because there's obscure/prototype/classified missiles between the numbers. Same rule about the number still applies though.

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          Also the classic American maneuver of adhering to a naming/numbering scheme for awhile, then adopting a new naming/numbering scheme while not renaming the old stuff. At least we're not the imperial Japanese though.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            >At least we're not the imperial Japanese though.

            Why, what did they do?

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        Recently the tri-service designators have been shit on. AIM-260 skipped a shit load of numbers. The Minuteman replacement got designated LGM-35 for some fricking reason.
        I partially wonder if there are concerns over how many undesignated missiles are in existence, if suddenly something gets named the AIM-195, that's tacitly acknowledging the existence of 7 other weapons.

  3. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >(X?N?)
    NAIM-174B
    N is a prefix for Special Test rockets and missiles

  4. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    How many can fit in a B-21?

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      That's classified, Ivan

  5. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    So are these going to be stopgaps until the dedicated long range weapon projects like LREW AMD LRAAM come in?

  6. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    What is its range?

  7. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    Its a good idea. Not sure why they didn't do it earlier. The only real downside is that the SM-6 is a very expensive missile so its not suitable for mass adoption as an AAM. But it is really high performance. The ship launched version is supposed to have a 130nm range. Air launched could be easily over 200 miles.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      >The only real downside is that the SM-6 is a very expensive missile
      Can't they make it cheaper?

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        If they did then it wouldn't be as capable. They already saved a lot of money by being clever and reusing the AMRAAM active radar instead of developing a bespoke one. SM-6 is sort of an anti-everything missile. It can shoot down planes, cruise missiles, ballistic missiles and moving surface targets. I've even read it can be used as a land attack missile. That much capability is expensive. They could probably save money by stripping that away and making it a dedicated AAM but this is probably meant to be a stopgap like

        So are these going to be stopgaps until the dedicated long range weapon projects like LREW AMD LRAAM come in?

        said.

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          The fact it has the AIM prefix implies to me they're going to strip out the multi-mission capability. It wasn't even part of the Surface launched version initially, it only got added in Block 1A.
          Also gotta account for the first-stage booster not being present, though admittedly it's probably one of the cheapest part of the missile. SRBs aren't exactly complex.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            They are calling it XAIM-174B. If think if it were that far modified they would have given it a new designation like C or D. Since its still a Bravo it should do Bravo things. And again, this is a stop gap solution until AIM-260 enters service. You aren't going to rip out the electronics and develop something new for a missile you need yesterday. That would cost extra time and money and would require further testing and validation. We do things the right way in the west after all. Since this is a stopgap and not meant for long term production its cheaper to modify as little as necessary and keep as much the same. You will never recoup the time and development cost with production numbers on this thing. Also, a supersonic air launched antiship missile is nice-to-have.

            • 1 week ago
              Anonymous

              >And again, this is a stop gap solution until AIM-260 enters service.
              AIM-260 is already being delivered. So, for whatever reason, Navy feels the need to run both of these missiles concurrently.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                AIM-260 fits in IWBs
                AIM-174B doesn't
                AIM-260 has long range and is A2A
                AIM-174B is even longer range, and has potential A2G and anti-ballistic roles already programmed.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                This thing is so long ranged the Navy probably looked at it and thought 'we don't even need to buy stealth fighters, we can just outrange everything'

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                or at least they can keep the F-18's relevant for the late 2020's and early 2030s until F/A-XX comes into play in the late mid to late 2030s.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                It's so long ranged that the USN can use F-35 to cue these missiles off of Hornets from over the horizon, these sorts of engagements have already been demonstrated with F-35 and aegis destroyers.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                SM-6 is already well-integrated, in production, and in stockpile

                https://i.imgur.com/eiiqNA0.jpeg

                Another picture, this one is designated DATM-174B. Look at the paint too, something tells me these are going to production, if not already in it.

                ATM means captive air trainer, right?

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                The C prefix is for captive rounds.
                Second letter T is just to designate a training round of any type.
                D is for dummy, it's an empty round made for ground crew familiarization.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                https://i.imgur.com/WSk9GMj.png

                I see, thanks

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous
              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                Strategic Magazine depth. Theyre testing Vls patriots for the same reason

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                And powered JDAMS, and a billion other cheap options for PGMs.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                >Theyre testing Vls patriots for the same reason

                Compact Agile Interceptor is another program flying under the radar that is pretty significant. The USN wants dual packed PAC-3 MSE for magazine depth.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                It likely gives greater range and flexibility to fleet defense. With this you can effectively position ABM interceptors even farther out and both the rhino and SM-6 are CEC compatible so any sensor, any shooter.

  8. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    The UK doesn’t have this capability

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      >The UK doesn’t have this capability
      or any other for that matter!
      >no refunds!

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        >still seething about the crimean war

  9. 1 week ago
    Yukari

    is there a way to estimate how much more range this would get if you lobbed it while going just under mach 1?

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      The usual rule of thumb is 2.5-3 times ground launched range.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        The surface-launched version has a booster, the air-launched version doesn't

        too hard to compare without actual data.

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          You can roughly go off of the regular Standard MR. Range should be around 400km minimum.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            Fuuuuuuuuuuuug and im guessing for bvr datalinked targets?

            • 1 week ago
              Anonymous

              I would assume it has the same capability of the regular SM-6, so yes.
              Would give carrier groups a massive standoff range against enemy aircraft as well as cruise missiles, maybe even ballistic targets.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                Diamonds, thanks for making my 4th

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          EH, if you really wanted to, you could just look up the burn time and thrust of the MK 72 booster and go from there.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous
        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          >The surface-launched version has a booster, the air-launched version doesn't
          So if we strapped the surface variant to the airplane, range would increase even further?

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            Maybe? But I'm not sure if it would fit

            • 1 week ago
              Anonymous

              Oh, it'll fit.
              https://www.afmc.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/3270727/flashback-f-15-global-strike-eagle-paths/

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            Yeah but that’s almost a whole tonne of extra weight in a very much not aerodynamic booster
            This current version is good

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          You can roughly go off of the regular Standard MR. Range should be around 400km minimum.

          I would assume it has the same capability of the regular SM-6, so yes.
          Would give carrier groups a massive standoff range against enemy aircraft as well as cruise missiles, maybe even ballistic targets.

          There must be some math rule to convert surface launched missile range to air launched range at certain altitudes and speeds, would also need to find the surface launched range without the booster as that is what this will be.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            I'm sure there is.
            The problem is that the official range for any missile in US inventory is severely understated. SM-6 range on Wikipedia is listed at 240km-460km, it's probably at the higher end, but you're also dealing with the booster in that case.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            Nothing simple. You could roll your own iterative spreadsheet or use a tool like RASAero but you'd have to guess at a lot of the numbers and try to reverse engineer how big the motor and fuel store is, etc. which would be tricky since the performance numbers are basically lies anyway.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            It's called the rocket equation. There's no mystery to it, punch in mass, impulse and drag, get range. If range is far enough, reach orbit, with some hand waving.
            Wait. Full fricking stop. Is this an ASAT?!? The SM-6 is the US missile that has most recently demonstrated that capability.

            • 1 week ago
              Anonymous

              it doesn't have lateral thrusters so its exoatmospheric performance would be poor regardless of ability to reach the altitude

            • 1 week ago
              Anonymous

              You are confusing SM-6 with SM-3, of all US surface to air missiles only SM-3 and GBI have the ability to do exo atmospheric interceptions.

              see

              https://i.imgur.com/GiAsogw.png

              SM-3 is an exo atmospheric interceptor for mid course ballistic missiles and lower altitude ASAT

            • 1 week ago
              Anonymous

              >The SM-6 is the US missile that has most recently demonstrated that capability.

              SM-6 has never demonstrated ASAT capability

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      Not really. You kind of have to extrapolate from known data. Range loss from a ground launched AMRAAM or Sidewinder. Which was roughly triple. It's about the best you can go off of.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      You can extrapolate a rough guess. If you can roughly figure out at what altitude, airspeed and angle the booster burns out at then that's the equivalent a fighter carrying it has to be at to equal range for when it drops off the pylon for energy estimates.

      The question you'd want to ask: Under Mach 1 but
      >At what altitude?
      >What's the target altitude
      >Is it head on, tail on or distance unchanging
      Because an AMRAAM launched at 45k at Mach 1 at an approaching target has a frick load of effective range.

  10. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    We're back.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      One step closer.

  11. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    The air-launched version probably doesn’t have the 1st-stage booster, so it’s not going to be that impressive.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      Air launching provides more dV than a booster does and SM-6 already has an exceptional range.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      It'll end up being a 500km A2A missile with ground attack capability, what more could you possibly want

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        >what more could you possibly want
        He wants you to stop posting about the superiority of US missiles to their Russian counterparts and instead kvetch about them and be demoralised.

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          Russia tried doing something similar with a modified BUK missile, Novator KS-172.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        >what more could you possibly want
        Real-life demonstration against russian jets near Ukraine

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      The range penalty vs an air launch at 10km, M1.25 is -15% according to my asstimation of dVs (Booster = +900 m/s -100m/s to drag and 2nd Stage = 1530 m/s)

  12. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    Another picture, this one is designated DATM-174B. Look at the paint too, something tells me these are going to production, if not already in it.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      https://i.imgur.com/WSk9GMj.png

      and if anyone needs it

  13. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    Keep in mind we have no idea what makes the AIM-260 special or where it has advantages over a larger missile like the AIM-174.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      Longer range than AIM-120 while still fitting inside an IWB? That much we definitively know; I assume the seeker head is better as well.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      I wonder how this will be queued and targeted. It doesn’t seem like the radar on a hornet would be able to match the big maritime radars these are usually used with. Maybe the idea is just to launch them maddog in the general direction of red HVAAs

      Ramjet propulsion it’s a knockoff meteor.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        AIM-260 probably uses a dual pulse rocket or similar instead of a ramjet. Ramjet missiles are kind of memes. There's a reason you don't see many of them.
        They're great once they get up to speed and while still have fuel but they're slow out of the gate and the air intakes are incredibly draggy once your fuel is gone. Plus those intakes give the missiles weird cross sections which makes carrying them internally more complicated.
        The first issue is the major one though. Having your missile take much longer to cover the same distance gives the enemy more time to react and can totally screw you. Time of flight is the reason the Meteor isn't a direct upgrade over something like an AMRAAM. It's better in specific situations but the pilots I've talked tend to roll their eyes when people start gushing about it like it's some sort of secret tech tree item.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      I thought the point was simply getting better range and performance out of the same form factor?

  14. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    PL-XX? more like PL-ACK

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      >PenisLongus-Female
      Futa PLAAF

  15. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    ITS JUST A FUEL TANK FOR THE F-22 BRO DONT LOOK TO FAR INTO IT, PLEASE DONT ASK FOR AN UNDERSHOT!

  16. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    PLZ ITS JUST A FUEL TANK BRO

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      That's clearly a kayak.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      Stop implying things, citizen
      Its an F22 fuel tank and that's as far as the discussion goes

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      These kinds of implications are a good way to go a freedom camp

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      Stop implying things, citizen
      Its an F22 fuel tank and that's as far as the discussion goes

      Don't worry about it.
      https://bemil.chosun.com/nbrd/data/10040/upfile/200908/20090814033559.pdf

  17. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    Could this potentially do ASAT?

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      Probably not.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      It is only capable of endo atmospheric interceptions.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      >Compact Agile Interceptor
      Where does this even fit? Somewhere between ESSM and SM-6? Is it more of an SM-2 replacement?

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous
        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          Almost makes it sound like an SM-3 replacement.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            SM-3 is an exo atmospheric interceptor for mid course ballistic missiles and lower altitude ASAT

            • 1 week ago
              Anonymous

              So it's point defence against hypersonics and high performance threats? Sounds a little like THAAD

  18. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    On the subject of the Standard Family, what is the MR equivalent of the latest block of SM-2ER? I have a hard time translating ER blocks to MR blocks.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      SM-2ER was replaced with SM-6, the current SM-2MR is the Block IIIC which uses an active radar seeker

  19. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    Give it a proper name. Not this alphabet soup. Names such as Thunderclap, Long Lance, Storm Shadow, Misty Mundae.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *