US Super Hornets With AIM-174B (SM-6) vs Chinese Carrier Group (WarGames 230) | DCS

[@grimreapers]

AIM-174B/SM-6 Series: F-35 Guides AIM-174B: kzbin.info/www/bejne/ZqvKh6WZbaqteZY AIM-174B vs AIM-54: kzbin.info/www/bejne/hXa2mWmpfrSXoMk AIM-174B vs PL-17: kzbin.info/www/bejne/aYK4q6R5fapjhcU AIM-174B (SM-6) Air to Air: kzbin.info/www/bejne/hWqrZItpl6qEiLM AIM-174B (SM-6) Anti-AWACS: kzbin.info/www/bejne/rHKyop-drbF_ac0 AIM-174B (SM-6) Air to Ground: kzbin.info/www/bejne/rWeYmpqdhbl6jck AIM-174B (SM-6) Anti Ship: kzbin.info/www/bejne/gmmmmnaciM2gY9E AIM-174B + MAKO + LRASM Anti Ship: kzbin.info/www/bejne/rpS6eISva7KbfMU

[@davesnothere.]

Can you simulate a pincer attack?

[@jcremeringful]

Supercap great video as always sir. I have a way off topic question. Can you or really anyone put a link in this thread for the “which aircraft is best at killing veil robotic cows? It was you and RC and the southeast of England did not exist in the last attempt!

[@MemphisBelle291]

Did you do that in DCS? If yes, how?

[@BV-fr8bf]

Request a high /lo mix. LRASM from B21 bombers with AIM-174s from F-18s from 120 degree angle. Now the Chinese Navy runs out of defensive missiles

[@NeilX2010]

AIM 174B is around 800kg without booster, so a super hornet can carry 4 without problem, a 80 missile salvo can be achieved by 20 aircraft, and that's awesome. Also, what if B-21 raider carry these missile as anti surface weapon?

[@MWSin1]

Just thought of something kind of scary: F-35s targeting for a B-52 missile truck armed with a bunch of AIM-174s.

[@bhogan843]

Worst?? B-21 sitting out of Chinese missile range, targeting Chinese air raft.

[@piotrd.4850]

More like F-22 for B-2/B-21...

[@LOLHAMMER45678]

B-52 would have LRASM or SIAW or even AGM-183...

[@HerrSticks]

You mean f-35 targeting for a couple C5s with a Rapid Dragon loadout.

[@StevenLandesVO]

@@HerrSticks Rapid Dragon is for cruise missiles - and they release their ordnance downwards. Not ideal for air-to-air munitions. Now some version of the same optimized for AA missiles... great for saturation attacks, especially on enemy airfields. Even if the PK isn't great at maximum range, you can make up for it with numbers, and weaponizing our legendary logistics is just *sick*. :D

[@stevennicovich8547]

AIM-174 - Aim-120 = AIM-54

[@StressfulGengar]

Interestingly you are dead on. The Aim-174 uses the seeker from the 120 for guidance haha

[@MaxwellAerialPhotography]

😱

[@steveyoutub76]

@@StressfulGengar also 174 +120=294

[@ivorharden]

Phoenix was the predecessor to both aswell

[@stinopharan5528]

@@StressfulGengar same variant radar BUT BIGGER RADAR

[@ktwei]

Saw the warzone article & thought. This is a job for the Reapers.

[@MaxwellAerialPhotography]

same here, i thought it might take them a week, but cap is on top of it.

[@YT-mn4eq]

I'm here straight after Sandboxx did a story

[@nickdubil90]

Yep. Using it as an anti-surface weapon is a travesty. 😂 It is designed as an air-intercept missile. And it is quite the best at hitting air targets. Although using spare weapons from a launch (after killing the air target) to aim for a surface target, is a pretty dope feature. I'm not claiming it has that feature, just informed speculation here. 😂

[@MaxwellAerialPhotography]

@@YT-mn4eq the sandbox to grim reapers pipeline is real

[@redacted9606]

Parabola = Trajectory Top of the Parabola = Apogee

[@screechowl4008]

Notably, the cost of defending against those missiles is 3x the cost to attack.

[@5Andysalive]

this seems to be a fundamental problem in todays conflicts.

[@reaperbsc]

It's just like hacking. Defending is much harder then attacking.

[@mattseller148]

Yep but with nations like China or the US it matters a lot less due to the absurd amount of money they can spend.

[@steveyoutub76]

3* ?...and the Air carrier? cost?

[@jamesricker3997]

In this instance , the damage ships are in European waters,far away from Chinese repair facilities

[@kdaltex]

Try the scenario again but more realistically. They're not going to launch a full air wing with just SM6s. I think having the SM6s act as a diversion for LRASMs would be more realistic. Time the launch of the SM6s to coincide their arrival with the LRASMs

[@ricbrown1114]

I was just coming here to suggest that. 👍🏾

[@chrisgraham8368]

Additionally, subs would send in torpedos to overwhelm the systems

[@kdaltex]

@@chrisgraham8368 i feel like subs are always left out of these scenarios. They would completely change the outcomes if they were in play.

[@Fred_Bender]

If this is a do-all weapon then some would be decoys ? Also a 360 degree attack would be more effective.

[@kdaltex]

@@Fred_Bender i think they're working on a way to drain missile defenses as cheaply as possible before sending in expensive munitions. Having a missile they deploys several smaller munitions close to the target that have large RCS may cause the ships to fire more missiles per missle we send at them. Instead of a dozen SM6s have one cruise missile act as a carrier for 6 short range decoys that break off around detection range.

[@kdrapertrucker]

Way back in the day (late 1990s) I would play "Jane's Fleet Command" and would often use Standard missiles on surface targets when I'd run out of tomahawks.

[@watcherzero5256]

Was an excellent game

[@Slipknotyk06]

Their fighter sims were just as good. Tremendous games.

[@hanrockabrand95]

Bojack theme: "Back in the 90s, I used to play a game called 'Jane's Fleeeeeeeeet Commaaaaaaaaand'"

[@Wyomingchief]

In all honesty to do these Naval simulations that would be a far better simulator than using dcs. Unfortunately GCS does it properly simulate Naval assets nor does it even include submarines

[@Dawnbandit1]

@@Wyomingchief Command: Modern Operations is great for it.

[@edwardsoto7046]

SM6 used in combination tomahawks, LRASM & Makos all “Time on target” overwhelm the carrier group’s defenses

[@ArizonaAstraLLC]

So get this: The US Navy just confirmed today that it's been deployed operationally

[@grimreapers]

Good timing!

[@Mathew_22]

so that means they have een using it for the past 1-4 years and NOW its revealed to the public

[@MuFFoneBTS]

And the range is crazzzzzyyyyy 🇺🇸💪

[@edl653]

Haha, I knew it. Just saw a Sandboxx Air Power video about AIM-174 and I knew you guys would be on it like white on rice. Good Job!

[@grimreapers]

Yes Sir

[@McAllisterCo]

The Warzone said the air launched SM-6 missile would have a SIGNIFICANTLY longer range than the ground launched SM-6, and they say the ground launched SM-6 can do 230 miles. That means the air launch version can do 300-400 miles all day long. We use air to air weapons (aim 9x, aim 7, aim 120’s) in many air defense units (NASAMS, iris t) and the range is roughly 1/2 - 1/3 when fired from the ground.

[@adrianpaz472]

However, the SM-6 has a booster that the air launch variant does not. We don’t know if this booster gives the missile higher initial speed than the air launch one. If the booster provides supersonic speeds, then you could argue that the air launch variant has less range.

[@mrknifeguy7070]

Altitude and airspeed of the launching platform has a big impact on the range of the missile.

[@adrianpaz472]

@@mrknifeguy7070 correct! But if the booster gets the missile to higher altitude and/or speed, then it’s a better start for the missile.

[@McAllisterCo]

I’m gonna go with what the Warzone claims, know offense. There reporting is considered some of the most reputable you can find. It’s there article cap is basing this video off. There is no question that the air launched SM-6 has SIGNIFICANTLY (the Warzones own words) longer range than the ground launched version, we’re just trying to figure out how much longer range.

[@adrianpaz472]

@@McAllisterCo no offense taken. I’m just pointing out that the MK-72 booster provides a considerable amount of energy to the missile. I do not know the specifics on how much and doubt the warzone writers know either. I would just say that based on its weight and dimensions, it should have enough energy to accelerate the missile to high supersonic speeds, while the super hornet will be lucky to fire that missile above mach 1.2.

[@FleetDefenderRA5]

I kept worrying the F-18 was going to shoot itself down... the missile drops and looks like it is going to go up the tail pipe. Thank you; good sim.

[@michaelccozens]

The "Judean People's Front" squadron: "We also do bar mitzvahs!"

[@Messywildcat78]

You say “nightmare,” I heard a “target rich environment.”

[@nekomakhea9440]

Another example of how for anti-ship weapons to be relevant today, they need to be either stealthy, hypersonic, or dirt cheap enough to saturate ship defenses by sheer spamming lol. I suspect AIM-174B is intended to be more of a "Phoenix Replacement" for sniping AWACS, anti-ship bombers, tanker planes, and perhaps fighter planes that think the PL-15's range makes them safe as another stopgap, like AIM-120D is, until better options like AIM-260 are fielded in mass. Perhaps it will be used for anti-satellite or countering anti-ship hypersonic ballistic missiles too, being air launched gives it a potential advantage there. The anti-ship and anti-land modes are likely secondary functionalities, similar to how S-400 _can_ be used for land attack in a pinch but isn't really great at it.

[@Snowwie88]

Now imagine if each of those SM6 missiles has a small decoy attached to it, that it would release just before the Chinese react.

[@11kungfu11]

and a trail squeaker.

[@nepenthy9804]

you can't simulate rader signature with a small decoy

[@946towguy2]

@@nepenthy9804 Sure you can. You can launch from 50000' at mach 1.5, release 3-5 reflectors per missile at the apogee of 350000', maintain above 80000 feet without bleed-off until 30 miles out and come in terminal at mach 4. You could also arm the first few missiles to airbust at 70000' with 10kt nuclear warheads, which would take out most of their defensive missiles.

[@nepenthy9804]

@@946towguy2 you are talking about some cold war nuke war shit💀

[@946towguy2]

​​@@nepenthy9804If the USA was dealing with a Chinese fleet, using clean tactical nukes of 10kt and less makes a lot of sense, especially for putting out an EMP that would knock out their radar and defensive missiles without actually nuking the ships. Then a few SM6 into each ship disables their entire fleet with minimal loss of life.

[@daveingram9240]

Excellent sim.. what woud happen with say 40 of these launched with a simultaneous launch of sea skimmng Lorasms, the AIM 174 as a sort of distraction and the sea skimming stealth missiles as the real strike package

[@mikehawley5108]

Just posted the same and then read your comment, sorry dude!, 😂

[@daveingram9240]

@@mikehawley5108 ah well, great minds often think alike !!

[@cynthiaherbst3909]

(Rails line of suspicious white powder) hear me out, a Salvo of Mako, then a small Salvo of Sm6 then Lorasm for more boom?!

[@sebfettel]

Things go boom 💥

[@MrMrfed]

yeah and add a bunch of decoys too

[@floridahdshooter]

US still won the Wallet war on this one.

[@miriamweller812]

Pretty much the only way US fascism wins any war: in simulations.

[@Four9sFineJewelry]

What if there just HAPPENED to be some UK F-35s flying with the American F-18s lobbing a bunch of their new spear missiles at the same time? 🤔

[@joshuasenior4370]

They’d have to be launched much earlier since they are subsonic missiles. I also don’t know if they have anywhere near the same range. MBDA state 130km+. Although with most UK and MBDA products that plus is usually quite a big one😂

[@exidy-yt]

All I can think for the Chinese side seeing all those SM-6s coming in is that little guy with the huge lips in Gurren Lagann screaming and hitting every single button on his launch console. FIRE EVERYTHING!!! Fun little video Cap, I love stuff like this.

[@Ekdrink]

I just imagine the pilot losing his shit like shinji in the Eva.

[@jamesatherton198]

I read the article wanted to see this,, and it already existed :) Excellent work chaps!

[@GG-yr5ix]

SM-6 can go against radar sites also. 140lb warhead causes serious hurt.

[@grimreapers]

Yup we have a ARM version also.

[@angryginger791]

I was thinking that would be a more likely use for them. Hitting SAM and CC sites from a safe distance. Or if going at a carrier, these plus a few stealthy cruise missiles would probably do the trick. Distract and saturate with these while the cruise missiles hit them at the water line.

[@GG-yr5ix]

@@grimreapers In this instance it would have made more sense to attack the radars for the air defense systems with RIM-174B and use harpoons against the ships themselves after the AD is down.

[@GG-yr5ix]

@@hansolo8225 Agreed that a 140lb warhead won't take out a major warship (Except maybe Russian). But it would do a major number on radar antennas, and guidance uplinks. Harpoon is designed to sink ships. 1,000LB Armor Piercing warhead.

[@keanenfulton4696]

SM 6 used in conjunction with MAKO and LRASM is a scary combo. Imagine being in a fleet and having to face that 💀

[@SegzWithTedCruz]

This has been theorized how the Kinzhal works as well

[@jennybrown9694]

I think more likely the U.S would use anything up to a one or two hundred ADM160 decoys, followed shortly after with a four ship of the AIM 174B would be cheaper and still achieve the same goal.

[@MaxwellAerialPhotography]

throw in a couple of LRASM's for good measure.

[@Jeffrey.1978]

@jennybrown9694 - yes, the same concept would have applied to the 2027 U.S. vs China and 2027 U.S. vs UK battles. U.S. CSGs still carry a decent amount of air-launched Harpoon missiles onboard its carriers. Regardless if the ships themselves have anti-ship missiles (ASM), the primary method of conducting anti-surface warfare strikes is via strike packages launched from the aircraft-carrier. I'm not saying this couldn't change in the future depending on ship loadout configurations and more available choices of ship based ASMs to leverage. Air-launched Harpoons can be combined with MALDs to burn up an enemy ship's air defense missiles. Follow-up waves of MALDs, LRASMs, and MAKOs is always feasible as well with separately scheduled ToTs. It all depends on the target, its perceived value, and the end goal of the encounter. Time will tell, but we also have to figure RTX's development of the HALO missile as well into the future equation. 😁

[@adrianpaz472]

The Super Hornet has 5 hardpoints rated to carry weapons with the weight range of the AIM-174. However, under this configuration, it is likely that it would exceed carrier landing weight limits and it will also mean no external fuel tanks. This configuration could be used if there is certainty of using the weapons. A viable configuration would be 4 on the wings with one fuel tank, but the most likely to make best use of the range of both aircraft and missile is the use of two missiles with three fuel tanks.

[@piotrd.4850]

I doubt that Super Hornet can take off, much less recover, with 5x3300 = 16500 lbs of stores.

[@The74t]

The belly pylon might be rated for the weight, but I don't think it's wired up for that type of ordinance. At most I think it could carry 4 under the wings, so long as they're certain to use at least two before recovery. For all other uses though, it's probably just gonna be a pair underwing

[@The74t]

​@@piotrd.4850Pretty sure max weight off the cats is around 66 thousand pounds or so. I'm pretty sure it could be done, if not with 5 then 4 underwing.

[@hughmungus2760]

@@The74t launching at absolute limits is probably not going to be done outside of an emergency. It would wear down airframes alot and greatly increases the risk of accidents Your entire mission could be flubbed because an overweight hornet with live ammo had its gear ripped off by the cats and has to be cleared, halting sorties, causing the planes in the air to run out of fuel waiting for the wing to form up.

[@skatman3278]

Would be interested in seeing some combinations of their use. I can imagine an F-15EX with 2/4 of these paired with their powerful RADAR working alongside a couple of F-22, F-35,or even a Typhoon operating much closer to the enemy.

[@terryweedon8431]

Alex hollings and sandboxx news did a video on this. The super hornets can take off with 5 of the aim 174 but will probably only use 4 of them. They should be impacting the target above mach 3, dual pulse motors for the win lol

[@dustinfrey3067]

I would imagine a real attack would be layered. With the first few missile barrages being a healthy dose of decoys and maybe cheaper missiles. Every carrier fleet uses far more anti-air defense weapons than incoming missiles. So, you can use your first few salvos with mostly decoys to soak up maybe up to half of the air defense. Then your last salvo should include your stealthy sea skimmers and a massive barage of super and hypersonic anti-ship missiles. This would cause three major issues for the defender to deal with. 1st, if they have been able to determine that decoys were a part of all the other salvo's, it is likely to cause confusion and complacency. 2nd, it will possibly cause an unbearable amount of stress on the air defense systems since they have depleted at least a portion of their missile supply. 3rd, IRL, when air defense systems begin running low on missles, they will start prioritizing the most dangerous threats. This makes the systems easier to confuse and overwhelm.

[@willwozniak2826]

Update Cap.....sounds like the US NAVY has announced the AIM 174B has reached Initial Operating Capability....RIMPAC is going on as we speak and it is being used....

[@valuedhumanoid6574]

I was just imagining being a pilot when those things launch. I would be a little nervous having a missile drop off my airframe, go BEHIND me and ignite. Then watch as it soars above and over the top of me. with that massive engine shooting flame 4 meters behind it. But in reality, America invented the concept of ToT (time on target) and while the SM-6s mixed in with TALDS (tactical air launched decoys) were heading in, dozens of Tomahawks, LARASM and Mako's would be sneaking up from a whole other direction, as well as torpedoes from HK submarines. America KNOWS how well defended the Chinese fleet would be and would never spend that much money without a high payback. I get the idea of just testing the missile mono a mono for science tho. Another brilliant idea and video. Well done to Dark and CH for the nerd work and Cap for the test.

[@Shnazz999]

Looks like a safe and efficient way to deplete enemy AA defenses at the very least.

[@Orieni]

I wonder how well it works as an AWACS assassin.

[@froobas]

It's probably the entire point of sticking an SM-6 on an F/A-18 in the first place. It looks like it might be in a similar performance class to missiles like the Chinese PL-17/PL-20 or the Russian R-37; both of which are intended to ruin the day of AWACS or tankers..

[@Orieni]

@@froobas Almost like I was tactfully suggesting to Cap that he tried an alternate use instead of the purpose.

[@AmirShafeek]

I wonder how it compares to the pl-20 or r-37 the only down side to this missle is that its huge and cant be used by the f-35 so id imagine it would make it harder to get close enough to use this missle before being detected.

[@grimreapers]

SM-6 Anti-AWACS: kzbin.info/www/bejne/rHKyop-drbF_ac0

[@Orieni]

@@grimreapers well done.

[@danieljones7843]

I was going to pester you guys for this video, but then this video happened… it’s quite obvious you lot are excited since you jumped on this so quick!

[@grimreapers]

Yeh we've been doing this for a while: SM-6 Air to Air: kzbin.info/www/bejne/hWqrZItpl6qEiLM SM-6 Anti-AWACS: kzbin.info/www/bejne/rHKyop-drbF_ac0 SM-6 Air to Ground: kzbin.info/www/bejne/rWeYmpqdhbl6jck SM-6 Anti Ship: kzbin.info/www/bejne/gmmmmnaciM2gY9E

[@piotrd.4850]

Let's remind: 1. late AIM-120 had home on jam capability 2. there was already StandardARM - SM-1 with anti-radar seeker 3. all Standard Missiles had residual "to surface" capability 4. SM-2 bl. IV had also IIR seeker 6. SM-6 is SM-2 + AIM-120 seeker. Combinations open up.... and it is only 300 lbs lighter than ATACMS

[@lakeline6317]

I think for the US Navy, the main use of the AIM-174 is an AWACS Killier. First side to get the enemy AWACS down will get a massive advantage. Next, could be to take down strategic bombers.

[@mark97199]

Exactly. It's AIM-174, not AGM-174 for a reason.

[@grimreapers]

SM-6 Anti-AWACS: kzbin.info/www/bejne/rHKyop-drbF_ac0

[@mikehawley5108]

Nice video. Be very interesting to see what layered defence would make of having say 30 sm6 coming from top down...... And then lrasm/mako sneaking in wave top?

[@nagasako7]

It's... Beautiful. Aircraft is half jet, half rocketsship when attached.

[@sleeplessknight99]

Saw the article in the news and the next thing I did was go to the Reapers. Was not disappointed. 😃

[@MTBScotland]

The US navy have confirmed it is operational

[@trentvlak]

It looked to me like the speed and number of SM6 outpaced the C rate of launch. I'm sure the Navy knows very well what this theoretical rate is. Sweet battle. Thanks.

[@eric97909]

Pictures came out recently of a Super Hornet from VX-9 carrying 4x AIM 174B, 3x AIM 120, 2x AIM-9x, a drop tank, and an ATFLIR pod

[@reaperbsc]

Before I even watch this. I just want to say, I was REALLY hoping you chaps would do something with this. Talk about a fleet multiplier! Between this and Rapid Dragon, the US Navy just grew in capability like 3 fold!

[@tonyfondacaro1980]

Somewhere at the Pentagon there's an intern watching this furiously taking notes.

[@jmtpolitico80]

Great Experiment! I actually like this scientific tests you do a lot. Thanks GR!!!

[@jim.franklin]

SM-6 has a service operational ceiling of 90km (~300,000ft) which would give it a ballistic range, if a standard ballistic profile, of 374 miles from launch point. These are hypersonic missiles as they exceed Mach 3.5 under power. If you take the details of these - 21ft length, 21" diameter - its a rocket powered torpedo 😊 Sandboxx News had a good video on these which is well worth a look - Alex Hollings is a good information source.

[@FencerPTS]

Interestingly, the 174's cause a disproportionate cost of defense. In that regard they're tremendously effective.

[@Humblebeginningsfarmstead]

A combined strike using both aircraft and Naval vessels in sort of a hammer and Anvil approach could yield interesting results

[@ArchAngel-FJB]

I would like to see this run again, but as a multi-directional attack.

[@pahtar7189]

Past videos have shown that multi-directional attacks are often less effective because radars on the other side of each ship can be brought to bear so more incoming targets can be tracked.

[@BoraHorzaGobuchul]

With malds!

[@tf330129]

The interesting thing about the range of the missile. Is that with the new Datalink capabilities an F-35 could fly into enemy airspace and identify targets while the Hornet could stay out of range of enemy attack. Utilizing the data to guide the new missile in towards its target.

[@dksl9899]

Now this thing needs a worthy name. I vote for AIM-174 Godzilla / Gojira

[@timpaszkiewicz7169]

The aim 54 Phoenix missle work basically the same way. Once fired it would go up to around 105000 ft. Then it would come down to hit its target. They stopped making it because it could only get launched on a f14

[@jasonvick55]

If that can be used to ground attack, that really changes the game for how close US Carrier groups need to be from the Chinese coastline.

[@joshuabrook-harding978]

Upside is it's a lot easier to get an AIM-174B onto a super hornet than it is to get them into a VLS. Basically using a handful of AIM-174B is causing the fleet defence to expend their VLS systems leaving them at reduced capability or depleted for 2nd or 3rd wave attacks. Wonder if there will end up on rotary launchers in B1's or F15EX platforms for saturation attacks

[@douglasarthur2673]

Let's face it.....we all knew this was heading to the 'fire everything' button. 😂

[@grimreapers]

Best button.

[@SteffiLewis]

Surely with missiles of this value, you'd throw some decoys at the carrier group first to drain their armoury and then send a wave of LRASMs for the destroyers once the carrier is gone?

[@reaperbsc]

The whole point of this missile is that it is super economical. Because we use it all over the place. So we have a fk ton of them.

[@SteffiLewis]

@@reaperbsc makes sense 😎

[@mrlodwick]

That would be game changer capt!

[@Winston-lf7sb]

those missiles launch perfectly fine. for a kerbal design

[@FunnyQuailMan]

It'd be cool to see these & some of the new Enclosed Weapons Pod on Super Bugs in-game as well. I'm not sure if they're planned for F-35C, since they're low-vis but I don't know if they're stealthy enough to maintain something close to the clean Lightening II's RCS, but that'd be awesome too.

[@johnhmstr]

"time on target aye!" i expect if this was used for anti-shipping it would be in addition to standard cruise missiles. Terrifying to think of sea skimming missiles come into detection/response range at about the same time as these sm6's start to become a threat.

[@FLMKane]

The new anti balloon missile

[@iampostcode]

It'd be interesting to see, merely for cost purposes, how a US AEGIS fleet would stand up against it, and a UK Type 55 fleet.

[@louv4437]

The 174 has a 200 mile range and the new AIM- 260 which is released for F35, F22 and F15EX has a 220 range both game changers

[@blueskiestrevor5200]

I've commented this before but I really feel like the smart and stealthy LRASM is the only viable way to take down a Chinese carrier group. Fast weapons are great but they can be tracked and even if they hit usually they have small warheads. Meanwhile LRASM is much harder to see coming and it's smart so they work together to prioritize targets and probably have crazy terminal maneuvering making it hard to shoot down. Plus their warhead will take almost anything down. I think the new AIM-174B is ideal for hunting large targets deep in the real like AWACs, similar to the PL-17

[@STURYANPHUAYEWLIANG]

Fast moving missiles have a massive impact power, and SM6 could just target essential nodes of the ships.

[@blueskiestrevor5200]

@user-og4vk6mc9i True. But as shown here in this simulation , it doesn't matter if you can't beat their defenses. The amount of SM-6 it took to get through will never happen in reality. Now imagine 10 or so LRASM launched at night from a stealth bomber or submarine. They would have no launch warning and no indication they were under attack until ships started exploding.

[@ADR1fley]

Not that the P-8 (US ASW aircraft based on the Boeing 737-800) is something y'all have or care for, but Boeing is working with Lockheed to get the LRASM compatible with the P-8. The only anti-ship missile the P-8 carries otherwise is a harpoon, so this is a huge upgrade for them.

[@zaneroskoph7460]

There are two things to consider with the AIM-174b. First, rather than large vessels like these, I suspect vessels like the Type 22 missile boats are the intended surface vessel targets. Second, I’m willing to bet that these have targeting abilities similar to those planned for British Spear-3s, being able to pick specific targets such as the bridge, radar, and launch catapults if it is used against large targets.

[@grimreapers]

Agreed.

[@jerseyshoredroneservices225]

21st century Phoenix. Aim 120 + Aim 54 = Aim 174 Coincidence?

[@davidcanoy8579]

Really might be the key to emptying the enemy defense.

[@ewanbell7675]

Was waiting to see how long it would take you guys to make this

[@jackmizell5894]

Would be interesting to send a small flight of Hornets with SM-6s to target red AWACS during the fleet battles

[@CLGL9-yv8kh]

SM-6 has a maximum velocity of Mach 3.5 according to Wikipedia.

[@grimreapers]

I think that is the ship launched version. Air launched version will achieve a lot faster due to launch height.

[@politenessman3901]

I suspect that in such a scenario, it would be fired as part of a time on target strike with various stealthy missiles.

[@aaronstreeval3910]

It would be nice to see these be made compatible with the F15E and all USAF strategic bombers

[@hughmungus2760]

I wish DCS had a ROE setting for the AI so that they only fire when a target gets withing a set % of their maximum effective range so that they won't waste 4 missiles trying to shoot one down.

[@edwardbarocela2607]

Interesting sim. Perhaps a mixed attack with Harpoons, Tomahawks, and AIM-174 missiles would be more representative of real-world tactics.

[@grimreapers]

Yup

[@FleetDefenderRA5]

A mix of sea-skimmers and stealthy and high-flyers

[@edwardbarocela2607]

Also, I thought the Standard Missile was primarily an anti-aircraft weapon. It seems to me that its long range would make it an excellent AWACS killer. That would be an interesting and realistic scenario to simulate.

[@alphateam3326]

I mean, the AIM-174 can be used as a distraction + saturation attack for the enemies ammo and radar, allowing sneakier LRASM or other missiles to hit the intended targets

[@SmithandWesson22A]

Good addition to Australia's Super Hornets.

[@jacobmartin1100]

If they really want to use this as an anti-everything missile, if they could fit a modular payload into the warhead space with an EW package and maybe equip one or two of a given salvo (for anti-shipping strikes) that might significantly improve their capabilities. Otherwise it'll be a neat AA missile. For ASM, they might serve as a good part of the high of the high-low mix when used in conjunction; they seem a bit expensive to be hurling by the score.

[@mitchelloates9406]

I can almost hear the ghost of the F-14 Tomcat having a good karmic laugh in the background. For those proposing to load up B-52's or B-1's with these missiles, and using the F-35 for guidance - welcome back to the Missileer Concept, first thought of back in the 50's and 60's, before the Tomcat was even a gleam in Grumman's eye - an aircraft such as the B-52 or 747 acting as a flying dump truck with a crap load of missiles, and other units providing the recon and guidance.

[@piotrd.4850]

There was also later concept - TWAAAM - Theater Wide Air to Air Missile - basically; arm E-3 Sentry.

[@PSC4.1]

The good part about this simulation (if it comes close to what would happen supposedly) multiple waves of these missiles would probably make their launchers with counter weapons run dry, thats one part of the onion peeled away, all that would be left if the CIWS, and if there is enough missiles CIWS would not be able to keep up, what would make these missiles even more dangerous is if they did a calculation of how to get low enough to the surface and break the sound barrier to the point of being one of the faster sea skimming ASMs

[@entspec]

MALDs are much cheaper than SM6 and could be used to deplete defensive missiles and pave the way for a much higher PK SM6 attack. They might be perceived as a greater threat if the enemy radar is duped into thinking they are fighters each one carrying multiple weapons systems. If this were the case they may even fire more ordinance at them which would only make the MALDs even more cost effective.

[@robandcheryls]

I enjoyed that. Thank you. 🍁

[@ur_quainmaster7901]

I wonder how many a P-8 Poseidon can carry. 2,4, one or two on each wing... 6, three on each wing, or 11 and it fits in the weapons bay? If it's 6, or 11, that could be a problem for whatever it's shooting at. Having a dozen P-8s behind the lines of a Taiwan invasion picking off ships or planes could change the outcome of a close fight.

[@viaticchart3139]

or if nothing else, forcing the PLAN fleet to blow their VLS load before a decisive engagement

[@MaxwellAerialPhotography]

oooh thats a very good question,

[@jugganaut33]

Problem is hiding a fucking P8 Poseidon

[@ur_quainmaster7901]

@@jugganaut33 You wouldn't, it would be hanging back with AWACS. Or in a "strike" group with a C-17 loaded with Rapid Dragon that would have escorts.

[@enoughrope1638]

My understanding is that the range of the missile and aircraft combined allow these to be launched from Guam and strike targets in Fujian and Hainan. Specifically the two marine bases that are training to invade Taiwan. in other words these are meant to make Guam more than a logistics hub and bring it directly into the fight.

[@Messywildcat78]

Heck this would make the Chinese fleets a sitting duck because they will have used up their missiles before US ships even fire

[@killerdoritoWA]

I won't be surprised if there's ever an air-launched Standard ASAT. One SM-3 Block 2A on an F-15 or F-18 would do.

[@mfreed40k]

Theory: US directed energy weapons are proving to be very very effective, SM-6 is soon to be very surplused.

[@hanrockabrand95]

Good thinking. It adds up.

[@wedgeantilles8575]

Well, you know the famous saying: Laster weapons are weapons of the future. And always will be. Laser weapons are coming "soon" - since many decades. It was told again and again and again that laser weapons would be for real "soon". Never happened. And there are many reasons that may continue for the next decades. And in 2050 we will still say: Laser weapons will come soon. And in 2070 the same.

[@hanrockabrand95]

@@wedgeantilles8575 Come on, Wedge! What do you think your X-Wing shoots, harsh language?

[@wedgeantilles8575]

@@hanrockabrand95 Somehow I completly fail to understand the point you are trying to make. What has the weaponery of a movie to do with the weaponery of the real world?

[@hanrockabrand95]

@@wedgeantilles8575 It's called a "joke." The irony lies in the fact that "Wedge Antilles" is a character from a fictional universe where laser weapons are already a mature and ubiquitous technology, while in real life, laser weapons are still in the development and testing phase. This creates a humorous contrast between the fictional world of Star Wars and the real world, where the character's complaints about the lack of laser weapons are anachronistic and unfounded.

[@MisterDeets]

Would love to see a mission with the new Boeing Revolver in the C17 included if possible. Not sure how you would make that work in DCS, but it would be cool to see what you folks cook up.

[@jaydeister9305]

[@FELiPES101]

apparently when ship launched the range is ~230miles so when launched from somewhere between 30-50,000ft it is going to gain substantial range

[@mikeck4609]

Looks like easiest way to take out a carrier is with a good old fashion Mark-48ADCAP torpedoe from a Virgina Class Sub

[@grimreapers]

Yarp.

[@fencserx9423]

Seems to me that it’s biggest strength is that it’s fast enough to be irritating and big enough to be dangerous

[@jamesscott2894]

To be fair, attacking a full fledged PLAN CSG would indeed very likely call for a full Alpha Strike with the entire Air Wing (assuming they even have 80 AIM-174B to equip each Super with in the first place) I'd kind of be interested in a scenario, say only 24 AIM-174B (say limited weapon availability, and/or only carried by the two seater F/A-18F and not the single seat E models, or whatever other reason) but the other jets are firing Harpoons and/or LRASM and/or NSM in a mixed complex attack. (in any case, it seems the game engine says both a USN and PLAN CSG needs minimum 50 missiles to saturate and leak through...)

[@BringTheRains]

For modern missile defense firing more missiles than the enemy has defense missiles isn't a bad idea. Also the Hornets can rearm and refire faster than the enemy can reload their missiles underway.

[@kingjehukhan8541]

Great video! Thanks!

[@bestestusername]

And the wolf pack below the waves takes their pic of the surface targets

[@bobgamera]

To stay topical, load out three B-21 with a combination of AGM-158B JASSM-ER and AIM-174B. Then have this flight accompanied by nine X-47B CCAs, and a E-3 Sentry - AWACS. The mission is dealers choice - just that it also needs to have a legitimate role in the mission for the F-22 or F-15 - your choice of aircraft and numbers.

[@donkeysunited]

6:49 180,000 knots. Impresssive! ;)

[@grimreapers]

lol indeed

[@lovehawks2814]

Believe it or not, the F-35 in all its variants can make excellent use of this weapon. SM-6, and by extension AIM-174, is designed with a "Any sensor, any operator" philosophy. Once launched, it can be passed off to other sensor platforms to guide it in. Ie, a Super Hornet launches one of these bad boys, it can then be picked up by an Aegis equipped destroyer and guided along before passing it to a forward operating F-35C that guides it into the J-20 it has locked up. I can't remember the movie, but there was a guy surrounded by the bad guys, and he makes the bold claim he could kill any of them with just his finger. Once he points his finger at one of the baddies and says "boom!", the guy's sniper buddy takes a shot that ends the baddie. This is kind of the real life version, but with missiles.

[@MrGameMeister]

Perhaps the "N" in NAIM is for "naval"? Interesting. Never seen that prefix before.

[@shilohlee4332]

The Sandboxx News video mentioned it indicating testing/trialing. It was spotted in joint naval excersizes with a Blue Band/Inert markings.

[@MrGameMeister]

@@shilohlee4332 ok but that doesn’t explain the “N”.

[@shilohlee4332]

@@MrGameMeister Don't know if it stands for anything. Might stand for "new". Or the name a specific Procurement/Testing program/procedure/office.

[@MrGameMeister]

@@shilohlee4332 my guess is "naval", but it's just a guess. i've done a lot of work in this area and just haven't see that before.