The fact that SM-6s are networked weapons means that Super Hornets can actually be told to fire "blind" and then let F-35s, closer to the targets, feed target information to the missiles. An excellent decision that greatly reduces the "Tyranny of Distance" in the Western Pacific.
Yep. Add in Rapid Dragon. The big minds at the Pentagon are on the right path. Also, it's not operational but the idea of putting PRsM pallets on autonomous ships is next. Maybe make PRsM air launchable also.
You're assuming link 16 and all other satellite communications are still going to be working. If SHTF all the satellites are coming down. They'll be the first to go. Just like Russia is jamming GOS in Ukraine right now, and our long range Atacams have a 15% to 20% hit rate. They'll take down our satellites and then jam everything. Our military is entirely too dependent on technology. Especially technology that's exreamly vulnerable.
The Chinese are currently standing on the shoulders of giants, namely the USA, due to stealing all the technology military data that the US couldn't protect.
It was rumored before about making an air lunched version of SM6 but I think they already tested it many years back they just havent shown the public yet until today.
@jimfrazier8611 I like the way you think. The "New" yf-23 could be a B-21 escort or a fleet defender like the F-14 . Northrop, instead of raiding the F-15 and F/A-18 parts bins could now raid the F-35c parts bin. Imagine if every ship with a Helo pad and enclosed hangar could launch a F-35b ?
The beauty of these missiles is that can be used against any target. Ballistic missile, hypersonic missile, cruise missile, aircraft, warship, ground target. Ship launched variants have hit satellites. They can do it all and we should lean into this strategy. Multi-use missiles are more expensive, but offer so much versatility.
no SM-6 cannot hit satellites because its maximum altitude is not three digit km and has blast fragmentation warhead. What you are thinking about is SM-3
@@miraphycs7377those figures are from the surface not from the air, if the missile is launched in an upward trajectory from the F/A-18’s maximum altitude, it can probably take out a satellite…
@@moodyman1769 Obviously, it would calculate it's trajectory. The US did this with an F-15 with a similar naval missile in the 70's. AIM-174 could definitely be programmed to do so.
Having a diameter of 21 inches for the AIM-174B vs 7 inches for the AMRAAM while using a scaled-up radar seeker from AMRAAM would mean that the AIM-174 seeker has 9.5 dB greater antenna gain. If coupled that antenna with a more powerful transmitter, the AIM-174B will be much harder to jam. With midcourse correction and terminal radar guidance, the target will have very little warning until the radar seeker turns on, and by then, it will probably be too late. Weighing 3,000 + lbs vs 350 lbs, this missile's range will be scary.
Hm, hm ... AIM-174B has body diameter of 340 mm ( 13.5 inches), length about 5 m and weight about 700kgs. AIM-174B does not have Mk-72 booster from RIM-174B /SM-6 ( has own weight of about 800 kgs) . AIM-174B has max real speed after acceleration phase about 4 Mach. F/A-18E SH can launch AIM-174B from max height of 15 kms and with max real speed of 1.5 Mach. On the other side, new Russian ( now combat proven ) R-37M has body diameter of 380mm,lenght of about 4 m and launch weight almost 600kgs. New dual-band radar seeker type 9B1103M-350 called 'Shayba' has antenna with diameter of 350 mm( wider then body of AIM-174B) .Max real speed after acceleration phase is 6 Mach and MiG-31BM can launch this heavy very long range hypersonic AAM from the height of 22kms with max real speed of Mach 2.8 ( first speed of the AAM ) . Max 'possible' authorised /calculated launch distance against incoming bigger air target is in the range of 300-400 kms for AIM-174B (RIM-174B ,SM-6 has 350 kms but with Mk-72 booster) and 400 kms ( even more ) for R-37M. In both case we must calculate max possible launch height and real speed for the both mentioned fighters.
Its horrifying for China and Russia because the F-18 with AIM-174B effectively negates their weapons The critical part of the AIM-174B is that like the SM-6, its a Network-centric warfare weapon designed to use Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC) as well external sensors The missile can be launched and handed off to E-2D, an AEGIS destroyer or handed off to Command and Control Battle Management Communications (C2BMC) network The F-18 can launch AIM-174B against enemy missiles and still attack the enemy aircraft with AIM-120DFR3 or AIM-260 JATMs
Where it gets really scary is if they adapt the forthcoming 21 inch motor SM -6 block 1B. the army is already adopting that variant along with the tomahawk for their mid range missile system. I don’t know if an F-18 could carry that bigger missile, but I have heard people talking about turning a B1 into a “missile truck” using that particular missile. I’ve heard that come come up in conversations about the proposed B1 R, which would use like F22 engines and have a Mach 2 dash speed in about a 4000 nm range.
Most Missiles can only do single role like air to air or Surface to air. But this missile can do air to air, air to surface and surface to air. The S300 can be modified to hit land targets as but cannot hit moving targets unlike SM6. Imagine firing a sm6 and it missed a target aircraft but the missile kept going to hit the ships radar as a secondary target.
Latest AIM-120D3 is already on par with Meteor in term of range since 3 years ago. Not to mention PL-15 is 40% larger by volume, so it is easier to outmaneuver than an AMRAAM and is more useful for big and slower aircraft like AWACS, heavyweight bombers, and tankers. Also almost two weeks ago, they had a successful all-up round (AUR) test of LRHW/CPS.
It isn't quite on par with Meteor in max range and it has a smaller "No Escape Zone" because it still blasts all its fuel in a few second long boost phase and then glides the rest of the way coasting on inertia alone and getting slower, like any regular Air to Air missile, while Meteor with its Ramjet engine keeps firing and keeps up its speed for much longer.
@@TrangleC YES its unpowered at terminal phase, hence why it can have even more range with its lofted trajectory as it will climb to the highest altitude it can reach at boost phase. AIM-260 on the other hand is powered at termninal phase and would most likely replace if not supplement AIM-120D3.
Since the PL-17 offers the Chinese the same range characteristics and flies faster - I doubt they have much concern over the AIM 174. To be competitive, the US really needs to catch up. The problem with that is greedy corporations basing their performance off profits, and not functionality.
Just the thought of losing a single one of our F-35’s close to the communist Chinese coastline is terrible because there would be no possible way to recover that airframe and the communist Chinese would have in their possession billions of dollars worth of R&D and U.S. advanced military technology/ technologies , IR sensors technology DAS technology, RAM technology theres just so much they’d gain by recovering one of our F-35’s I can’t bare the thought of it ever happening. And I hope and pray it never happens.
Perhaps you didn't get the memo, but the chinese stole the engineering data for the F-35 many years ago hence their J-20 possess many aspects of the F-35. Besides, if an F-35 did get shot down(not likely) then it will be a high priority target of ours to "de-militarize" it. I have taken part in de-militarizing several subsystems of the radar I worked on with a sledgehammer after fire damaged part of it.
Modern fights are expected to happen beyond visual range by radar guided missiles. IR missiles are still there in case you get into an unexpected "knife fight" at very close range. Perhaps you could imagine some secondary roles for them as well, such as shooting down Shaheds or subsonic cruise missiles but that is hardly anyones weapon of choice in air-to-air combat.
Not internally, you could maybe modify for f15EX but the whole point was to replace the F14s pheonix aim54. So I guess the priority was to deploy on a carrier capable aircraft. And what is the point of deploying on F35c if you are destroying the Stealth by carrying it externally?
F/A-18E/F for sure will carry them and maybe F-15EX for the USAF. While F-35s will carry MAKO or SiAW or ARRGM-ER or JSM for anti-ship role alongside AIM-120D3 or AIM-260 internally.
