How will the US use its new 200+ mile air to air missile?

[@juliuszkocinski7478]

I love the thinking here of adapting existing cutting edge for new role instead of long and expensive development

[@billhanna2148]

Gives one the feeling that things are heating up sooner than expected !!

[@LumineScientiaeFidei]

It’s good, but not optimal. The AIM-174 is a Mach 4-4.5 missile, compared with a true AAM like the R-37M, which flies at Mach 6. The SM-6 is highly maneuverable by the standards of anti-ship missiles. It is not especially good by air to air standards (20-25g). AMRAAM does 32g, R-37M 30-35g. This is a stopgap solution.

[@juliuszkocinski7478]

@@LumineScientiaeFidei To be fair this seems to be directed not towards fighter jets but more of a rear duty bombers/tankers/AWACS, where 20-25G is plenty. That being said agree with stop gap and I fully expect next gen very long range AAM to have motor similar to Meteor with stealth-friendly doctrine (B-21 bay maybe?)

[@kameronjones7139]

@LumineScientiaeFidei aim120 flys at Mach 4 and the sidewinder at Mach 2.5 the speed isn't an issue. I also wouldn't trust anything Russia says in regards to their missile. The sm6 is designed to also hit fighter targets. It 140 pound warhead makes it very difficult to escape from

[@MostlyPennyCat]

Indeed, this is the sort of thinking we use over here in Europe, nice to see America _thinking_ for a change, rather than just throwing money at the problem. Stop Gap it may be, but starting with SM-6 and then _upgrading_ it is pretty exciting. Again, that would be a very European way of working, ASRAAM, Sea Ceptor, Brimstone, SPEAR3, SPEAR-EW are all missile projects that reuse technology from previous projects, for solved problems.

[@JvmCassandra]

It is scary. WW2 , two carrier groups would only launch its only strike group when the other was within 300 km range. Today an aircraft will fire an air to air missile that out ranges that by a wide margin. Battlefields become high threat environments no matter how far away from the “frontline”.

[@Covfefe_Jelly]

Yeah you can launch at those ranges but if your target is a maneuverable one, good luck hitting it.

[@MrMunkuu99]

Same with drones. No matter how entrenched your position is or how mobile you are the drone can get you

[@allanwong3447]

Wanted to point this out a long time ago. Most video game and movie makers don’t understand modern warfare. It’s always some action hero with a gun that determines the war in the these stories, when in reality it’s mostly BVR weapons (including long range artillery) that dominate the battlefield.

[@Altay0047]

WW3, all place will be front line

[@AdrianFahrenheitTepes]

@@MrMunkuu99not just that but GPS can be jammed, messing with what you or your enemies can see

[@ycplum7062]

I can see a loyal wingman doing the targetting task with a F-35 relaying the data to a F-18 or F-15, and later to the AIM-174 directly.

[@SamtheIrishexan]

Try a loyal task force. They will be datalinked with specialty unmanned aircraft.

[@sunnex474]

Back in my day, we just had a guy in the back of the same jet to do that

[@XerrolAvengerII]

​@@sunnex474the good ol days

[@kameronjones7139]

​@sunnex474 I remember the days when guys with shot gun and pistols would take shot at each other from planes

[@kameronjones7139]

​​ @jdo8405 CCA isn't carrying but targeting. With that being said it wouldn't surprise me if the airforce is making something similar or will adopt it

[@ryanperry7956]

I personally think that F-35s will use their radar, stealth, and datalink to guide missiles launched from far away hornets. An F-35 will sit stealthily closer to enemy aircraft, a Hornet will launch a few AIM-174s from range, and the F-35 will do the rest. edit: oh nvm he hit the nail right on the head

[@generaldzaster2022]

Yeah that's its mission platform

[@hkfoo3333]

Chinese df17 will strike the carrier long before the F15 or 18 can even fly . Plus Chinese dedicated PL17 missile has longer range and better suited for shootting down planes than the sm6 missile. Amended missile can never do that a dedicated missile do. Another US does not have long range assets to target such long distance

[@User-gx3sr]

@@hkfoo3333how do you know the DF17 is accurate enough to hit a moving carrier? That’s incredibly hard to do with a ballistic missile, even the US would struggle to make a TBM that could do that.

[@thearchives1094]

​@@User-gx3sr ChINeS TEchnOLogY Is bEsT!!!!

[@volvo245]

How do you know the F-35 can remain stealthy deep in enemy territory with latest gen networked radars and passive sensors all around it? Because Lockheed-Martin told you so?

[@wax88]

OMG I cant believe someone would reference that aim120 simulation document from IASGATG 10 years later lol. I remember it was made cause players were disputing that the performance of the AIM120 were too draggy in DCS back then and because there was no open source numbers to really tap into, he took it upon himself to make some CFDs based on known information to show that the AIm-120 was modelled incorrectly in the game. Sadly, (at least at that time) ED refused to make any changes, and missile performance in the game back then was a bit anemic due to too much drag.

[@googacct]

My guess is that the main use for this would be against AWACS and bombers rather than plinking fighters out of the sky.

[@acctsys]

Like the Phoenix was.

[@33moneyball]

Yes…though it’s presence would force enemy fighters to stay farther away. You’re not gonna down a fighter at 100 plus miles but you can push them back.

[@Cryosxify]

​@@33moneyballYou might with f35 's providing guidance

[@atomf9143]

@33moneyball unless this thing is very maneuverable in its final stage for some reason. The US Navy claims it can kill fighters at 200 miles, but I suppose it’ll depend on a lot more factors than just the missile.

[@W4lt3r89]

@@atomf9143 Think the SM-6 can target super-maneuverable fighters. Which the 174 is based on. Pairing the missile with the 120's seeker head in a nutshell.

[@thegameplaymemer3248]

At this pace we'll have F35's launching Minuteman III in 20 years

[@greenlichtie]

No but they’ll carry MAKO or similar 😉

[@peterpanini96]

Yeah f35 can't lift those... if they do they fall apart... like russian planes from the 50s... 😂

[@christaylor6654]

Hopefully in 20 years we have a replacement for nuclear weapons.

[@christaylor6654]

Actually I take that back, if we had a weapon that could replace nukes it would be more likely someone would use it

[@greatBLT]

​@@christaylor6654Ion Cannon

[@jaymoore332]

With some modifications, the F-15EX can carry up to 18 AIM-174s. One can mount on each under-wing pylon. One can mount on a fuselage corner launcher on each side (though the -174 is too long to fit two on each corner). The centerline hardpoint can support a triple launcher if no fuel tank is carried. An additional launcher can be fitted to the top of each vertical tail. One can be carried inside each engine intake. Leaving the WSO behind, one missile can be carried in the back seat. Finally, a new towed missile trailer could mount an additional six. Of course, this heavy loadout significantly increases fuel consumption, requiring the F-15EX to remain connected to a KC-46 for the entire flight. However, the KC-46 can itself mount an additional 10 AIM-174s under each wing. This is a very exciting new capability for the USAF.

[@persistentwind]

This... thank you.

[@persistentwind]

@SaintFluffySnow read it again... slower...

[@pike100]

"Towed missile trailer" - that is hysterical 🤣 👍

[@rebelgaming1.5.14]

Dictators HATE them! Learn how the USAF destroyed an airforce with two planes using this one simple trick!

[@dananorth895]

Don't neglect the possibily of mounting more missles on the missles themselves. And If the co-pilot has specially engineered breast pylons, thats actually two additional missles in the back seat!

[@piotrd.4850]

Remember, that most drag is casued by lower atmosphere and near sound barrier speeds. Even launch from standstill at 33k feet would have enormous advantages, much less with high subsonic speed when most of motor's energy would be already used in supersonic range, with ininitial altitude and velocity in relatively thin air. Anyway, I still think that further development will - and should - go to increase speed and end manouverability, even AT expense of range. 7:50 - who ever bought R-37? PS: late SM-2 bl. IV had IIR sensor for improved terminal guidance.... along illumination radar receiver and is likely to accept other seekers, like one form latest HARM with milimeter radar ( also - we already had SM-1 in such application!)

[@davidd708]

Moreover, rocket thrust is greater at higher altitude. Rockets work by generating a (very large) pressure differential. Lower atmospheric pressure means higher pressure differential, which means more thrust. While air-breathing engines (jets, ICE's, etc.) lose power with altitude, rockets gain it. Starting high not only means more initial potential energy and lower drag, it makes the rocket itself more powerful.

[@ferdimond5781]

Honestly, as much as the F35 would look like the aircraft relaying targeting, i think its gonna be the B21. That one is so incredibly stealthy, up high, with a great overview of the battlefield. As its going in to drop some bombs it relays the data while being able to get much closer to any AWACS or radar platform than an F35

[@TheTuczniak]

I wonder if B21can fit it inside?

[@miriamweller812]

Stealthy against goat herders I guess.

[@daveblueballz6659]

@@miriamweller812 you have over 100+ comments on this channel all spouting anti western garble, get a life good lord lmao

[@billhanna2148]

B21 might be able to carry a few and with a smaller booster and that would mess up anyone's math for the war 😜

[@giganigga9624]

@@billhanna2148why would b21 need aim 174 if they can carry up to 20 cruise missiles ables to go 1500 miles+

[@MostlyPennyCat]

"Why remove the booster" Well, because you don't really want that fireball from hell toasting your wing or wingman. 😂

[@omgitsabloodyandroid5161]

To shoot aircraft down from 200 miles away?

[@nikolaideianov5092]

Nah To transform them into scrap

[@TOdoubledizzle24]

Possibly, but knowing it's out there means you have to stay at least that far away. Deterrence!!

[@greenlichtie]

Yep that’s what the man said

[@Cody38Super]

To become China and Russia's largest aircraft parts distributor! To prove China and Russia's superiority in aviation over America in how they seamlessly transform their most advanced aircraft into target drones and ejection test platforms. Whatever the advertised range is..add 20%-25%, because we always undersell our systems, unlike they do when they overestimate ZLL THEIR SHIT BY 200%

[@SamtheIrishexan]

Even further. Probably closer to 300 miles unlike China we tend to understate our capabilities.

[@Kenneth_James]

Inventory doesn't mean what we think when the Navy says it. Just like the Army inventory only had 700-800 ATACMs. You don't tell everyone exactly how many weapons you have.

[@akbeal]

This is very true

[@Nathan-vt1jz]

The AIM-174 has a massive warhead. It would be useful for air to air, smaller ships, and ground targets.

[@miriamweller812]

Sounds more like optimal for money laundry.

[@PeterMuskrat6968]

@@miriamweller812 lol Russian troll projecting his nation upon others.

[@jerseyshoredroneservices225]

Massive is a relative term and not very helpful. Compared to other air-to-air missiles it is a big warhead but for ground attack it's on the small side.

[@Nathan-vt1jz]

@@jerseyshoredroneservices225 I meant compared to other air to air missiles. It would clearly be smaller than most cruise missiles.

[@johnsilver9338]

It's like PL-17, R-37M, and Kinzhal combined.

[@RonJohn63]

AIM means Air Intercept Missile.

[@raptor1672]

No it's Advanced Idea Mechanics!🤣

[@spxram4793]

A really thought provoking presentation! Thank you for that. At an age of 18-19, I was a conscript and attended S-125 (SA-3) training. Times are a changing. This whole thing develops into the direction of sending out a missile cloud ( at least dozens), some of them being active seekers without warheads - and providing the warhead missiles with local (20-40km) targeting information. The warhead missiles themselves would be fine with short range IR/optical targeting to avoid EW measures and detection. As an alternative, the local seeker missiles could be helped or replaced by low orbit satellites. In general, WTF ...

[@ronaryel6445]

Nice video and I appreciate the graphs. The AIM-120D extended range AMRAAM, coupled to an F-18E Super Hornet with an AESA radar, equaled the Phoenix's performance in 2016. The Super Hornet's new radar offered Track While Scan and other modes offered by the F-14's AWG-9 (and later, the APG-71), upgraded, of course. But the F-14 AWG-9/Phoenix combination was a truly revolutionary system. In a test of its Track While Scan mode, an F-14A fired six AIM-54A missiles at six targets, including subsonic drone aircraft, and a supersonic drone traveling at Mach 1.2. Two drones suffered malfunctions. Four of the Phoenix missiles scored direct hits (including hitting the supersonic drone); the fifth passed within lethal range (representing detonation of a proximity fuse); the sixth missed its drone target, because the drone had dropped out of the sky.

[@apolloaero]

Was it the AMRAAM-AXE?

[@apolloaero]

@SaintFluffySnow if you knew anything about how jamming and spoofing works, you wouldn't make such an ignorant statement. Also, the CCP severely lags in microchips, which means they lag in radar sensitivity. You must really be riding the AI train, full steam ahead

[@ronaryel6445]

@SaintFluffySnow Do you have a citation from a reliable source to back that up? Chinese jamming could reduce the useful radius of detection, but Chinese military electronics are not known to be sophisticated enough to defeat the radars on the E-7 Wedgetail or the E-2D Super Hawkeye. On a 1970s E-3A with no upgrades, maybe, but not on surveillance aircraft flying in US inventory today. Again, if you back it up with a source...

[@pike100]

​@SaintFluffySnowChinese bot is trolling

[@AsunaYuukiSAO3]

I can't wait for AIM-260 JATM

[@ASpyNamedJames]

Keep waiting. They wouldn't be building this thing if they had it.

[@AsunaYuukiSAO3]

@@ASpyNamedJames They are building it.

[@mikeck4609]

Is the AIM-174 supposed to be a “stop gap” until the other AAMs the U.S. has been working on are ready? One was a replacement for AMRAAM I believe.

[@atomf9143]

Perhaps? Considering that the SM-6 is still in production and the institutional knowledge is still around, it seems like a missile they’d want to keep for a while. The AIM-260 would have to be a hell of a lot better to warrant this just being a stopgap.

[@PeterMuskrat6968]

@@jdo8405 lmao cope landlubber

[@johnsilver9338]

Even if the other very long range AAMs like Raytheon's LREW goes operational USN may still keep using AIM-174s for its versatility as it can also be used for anti-ship role.

[@mikeck4609]

@@jdo8405you had me until “F-35C” and “Virginia Class” both are incredibly capable programs. And the new missile scheduled to replace the AMRAAM is not a navy missile…it is a joint missile. So no, I don’t think it’s desperation. I think it’s someone identifying a current weapon system that- with minimal modification- can provide a capability that far exceeds that of any enemy.

[@apolloaero]

​@@jdo8405that's the fault of the shipyards tbf, the Navy was very shortsighted in cutting those. As for F-35, as many issues as it has, there's still nothing that can compete against it. It's more of a program management disaster, and hopefully something that isn't repeated with NGAD. The military should be able to maintain the engines without having to hire P%W technicians, and they should've had enough spare parts and maintenance depots for regular upkeep. As for software, there's really no excuse, they are lagging. Again, hopefully the B-21 doesn't have this issue, and all the lessons learned should be applied to the NGAD

[@bigmike9128]

Imagine the range and speed if they kept the booster but I suspect that it would be too heavy to carry if they did.

[@atomf9143]

If they kept the booster it might have worked as an anti-satellite missile, but the weight would have been insane.

[@ur_quainmaster7901]

That's for when it gets loaded on a B-1B or B-52. Actually I've been wondering about the P-8's carrying the AIM-174.... doesn't change much if it can only carry two, but if it can carry 9 and it fits in the weapons bay... that is dangerous.

[@billhanna2148]

Think about the B21 carrying a "few" and with smaller boosters !! Boosters are simple devices that can be more easily tailored to applications than the complete missile.

[@killman369547]

The missile and booster would probably throw off the aircraft's center of gravity and lift too much and it'd be uncontrollable.

[@cedriceric9730]

@@bigmike9128 the jet is the booster , it's speed gets added to the missile velocity, it's also in a thinner atmospheric conditions

[@Native_love]

Wow! Another excellent video Binkov!

[@richardmeo2503]

I wonder how close the B-2 or B-21 can get before they are spotted. Dropping those missiles from 50,000 feet could add a lot of speed.

[@killman369547]

The game has changed, with the amount of sensors in play in the modern battlefield stealth is becoming less potent. Optical, IR, radar augmented and linked to overhead satellites. There are too many ways to be detected and you can't be stealthy from every single direction.

[@ClockworksOfGL]

@@killman369547- I dunno, stealth is still a potent feature. As far as I’m aware, every system designed to shoot down aircraft relies on radar in some way or another.

[@richardmeo2503]

@@killman369547 If that be so then we will have to use small stealthy types drones dropped from the bombers 200 miles out.

[@johnsilver9338]

Only BMD and OTH radars can detect B-2 and B-21 at long range. Even AWACS may not detect them not until at close range.

[@peachybiscuits]

​@@killman369547optical sensors are incredibly suboptimal with optical dazzlers being already in the commercial market

[@lythd]

i liked the situational analysis you did to show how the extra range is very useful. its allowing the us to do something it wasnt able to do before, rather than just oh shoot from further behind to be safer like my first impression was

[@erikvanderheeg5729]

This was interesting!

[@Miamcoline]

Very helpful, thank you!

[@MarchHare59]

At 1900 lbs, the question of "bringback" to the carrier has to be considered. Bringback was a key selling feature of the F/A 18 Super Hornet, allowing the aircraft to return with its' bomb load rather than dropping it in the sea before it could safely land on the carrier, but with a pair of AIM 174 missiles or a single SM 174 on one wing coming home from a mission will probably stretch that concept to the limit. I suspect that the Super Hornets, which are due to stop production soon, might get a new lease on life due to wear and tear of existing planes, at least until a new aircraft with stealth comes along to replace it.

[@hertzwave8001]

f/a18 until 2100, got it

[@MarchHare59]

@@hertzwave8001 Maybe not quite that long, but another 3 to 5 years might prevent a shortage of Super Hornets in future due to wear out. That was the problem with the F15Cs getting overused until they started suffering structural failures which led to the F1SEX which has also been given a new lease on life with the AIM 174 giving a whole new meaning to the term "beast-mode".

[@rebelgaming1.5.14]

There is the ongoing F/A-XX program. Very little's known but it's meant to be the F/A-18s replacement.

[@losman94]

This is fascinating and a great way to repurpose an already effective system.

[@thedausthed]

It is incorrect to assume that the range of an SM-6 against air targets would be less than against surface targets. Drag is what limits a missile's range and it is much greater lower down in the atmosphere. So against a non (or slow) air target, the range would be much greater than 250 miles.

[@persistentwind]

Bingo!

[@reillybrangan2182]

Incorrect. In a ballistic or quasi-ballistic profile (surface to surface) the missile is able to re-invest all of the gravitational potential energy it gained on climb into glide range. Against an air-breathing target at altitidue, that gravitational potential energy is wasted as the missile either has to maintain level or climb above its optomised ballistic arc. Ballistic range will always be the maximum possible range a missile-type weapon can have, as it is the most efficient trajectory profile. Any other scenario will be some form of energy loss against its ballistic range, particularly against maneuvering aircraft.

[@triangulatorr4559]

Great summary of a lot of information, thanks!

[@rophiamphu1669]

I think they really downplayed the range.

[@TheBelrick]

And ignored how the anti Isr-USA alliance has missiles with even longer range and will be doing the same thing to Isr-USA awacs

[@neon.kalash3115]

Eh. I dont think they were fast enough. The US has already started to decentralize aircraft control. They missed their shot​@@TheBelrick

[@TheBelrick]

@@neon.kalash3115 USA is not updating its fleet. Its updating part of but will never replace the thousands of obsolete fighters it has in operation today. This is what happens when a nation collapses, its armed forces follow.

[@THE-X-Force]

@@TheBelrick Is that why Russia cannot complete it's 3-day operation against a neighbor on their border after over two years?

[@rophiamphu1669]

I dont really know how obsolete is us navy has become, but my take is , versus near peer adversaries, the us navy is still class ahead of its enemy. Its just obsolete by their standard. Fleet protection is still good, although something had to be done about hypersonic threat aimed at it. Hypersonic threat will not become a silver bullet for china or russia because we all know how hypersonic missile interception played out over the air in israel and ukraine . I think us navy fleet protection is capable enough but really needs some improvement for future threat which the new missile is good example.

[@Stellar001100]

Considering the SM-6 has a secondary anti-surface capability, it can be a game changer for both air and ground attack roles.

[@manofcultura]

Wow, so it’s about the size and weight of a 2000lb bomb. I wonder if there’s anything out there with a rotary mechanism that can deploy about 24 of these in under a minute while Travelling at high altitude and supersonically… Nothing comes to mind.

[@mannyhernandez6507]

You have not seen Rapid Dragon. Far worse. Cargo aircraft deploying 45 JASSMs simultaneously via pallet.

[@pike100]

​@mannyhernandez6507 I think he was being sarcastic when he said "nothing comes to mind."

[@Whiskey11Gaming]

Stop it, you are giving me a BONE-R. Rotary launched SM-6 is hot, doing it from a B-1 is even hotter... just need to get the USAF on board with a USN program...

[@dwilson284]

Well done Binky!

[@nikolaideianov5092]

Last time i was this early the houseing crisis happend

[@vapormissile]

The cave one

[@The_Strudel_Man]

Still happening 😭

[@dextermorgan1]

Just wait...

[@peterpanini96]

Yeah nothing changed ... just work 300 years to afford a house and 100 years to afford small apartment... or just live in the woods and eat properly... 😅

[@christaylor6654]

Pretty ironic that we are on the verge of a housing crisis again

[@dreamhunter2973]

This missile will add another layer to the Carrier defense...and also to airbase defense. Imagine how many SM 6 an F 15 can carry....if an FA 18 can carry a couple.

[@vapormissile]

*vampires!*

[@dreamhunter2973]

@@vapormissile 😂

[@piotrd.4850]

One of F-15 radars once had feature of synchronizing receiver and transmitter on TWO aircraft, allowing for increased power-aperture thus improved detection range. Imagine radar in F-15EX with the same capability.

[@joelau2383]

F-15E can only carry 5 without fuel tank.

[@gfun511]

You're thinking too small. Resurrect on the B-1R!

[@sgt.grinch3299]

Every Combat Aircraft in the US inventory can carry and deploy this weapon. C-130s are also equipped to deploy this weapon. The vastness of the Pacific Ocean just got smaller. The USMC is now using missile platoons that can be deployed all over the pacific. These units will be able to defend against air and naval assets with the same platform. 50 platoons spread out about the South China Sea and Philippines Sea will be able to shut down the entire theater of operations. Semper Fi.

[@alexalbrecht5768]

“SM-6 beats ships, SM-6 beats missiles, SM-6 beats aircraft, SM-6 beats everything!”

[@joecruz4706]

I see we have a man of IWHBYD!

[@alexalbrecht5768]

@@joecruz4706 glad someone understood the reference lol

[@douginorlando6260]

SM6 beats $100,000 incoming one way jet powered small drones. If 10 are coming, then better fire 12 SM6 missiles in case some get through.

[@alexalbrecht5768]

@@douginorlando6260 don’t need to waste SM-6 on those. CIWS such as the Phalanx, SeaRAM, or RIM-116 would be just as effective. If longer range is required use the ESSM or SM-2.

[@tzafas2]

HAAAAAAAAA!!! I AM THE FIRST SUBSCRIBER AND A HUGE FAN OF YOURS!!

[@joecruz4706]

AIM-54 + AIM-120 = AIM-174, I'm so glad the Phoenix is still recognized.

[@ramonpunsalang3397]

It's too expensive for widespread use on SuperHornet. AIM-260 will be doing the heavy lifting in A2A warfare.

[@usov656]

Yea thats going to be slam eagle or f18 weaponry. They'll prob be using it in formations with f22/35 acting as scouts and target aquisition, then relaying target info to the f15/f18 carrying all the heavy stuff.

[@TheNittyGrittyBruv]

If it’s too large to fit in the f-35 maybe it’s meant for the b21 raider

[@rogerthat4545]

There's no need to put something like this on an f-35, they can get close enough to use other missiles

[@wattlebough]

The Royal Australian Navy operates the SM6. The Royal Australian Air Force operates the F/A-18F Super Hornet and LRASM. Between the SM6 and the LRASM I see potential.

[@soulsphere9242]

Neither is in service yet, but will be within about two years.

[@jayvee8502]

So many missles im development. There is also the Mako hypersonic missles.

[@erikhesjedal3569]

So that's it, it's a hand off and send on missile

[@douginorlando6260]

You missed a key point … when a long range missile is launched it will trade some velocity for altitude. This greatly extends the range for all long range missiles launched. You should be comparing a 3D graph of launch velocity & altitude on 2 axis and velocity as a function of range on the 3rd axis for missiles that optimize the trajectory (I.e. missile climbs to the optimized glide altitude).

[@Murmuz077]

Excellent analysis, informative and educative.

[@LumineScientiaeFidei]

Bro, did you make it out of high school math? The booster adds nearly 50 miles to the range of the SM-6. Which you describe as “only 10%” of the overall range of the AIM-174. This would imply that the range is 500 miles which it’s not and you know it. 150 miles - 50 miles 105 miles x 150% = approx. 160 miles. Not 280. Not 250. Not 200. Sorry, you are completely wrong.

[@hkscfreak]

Physics can easily explain the energy relationship between velocity and altitude concretely. M is mass for both equations For velocity, energy is: E= (1/2)mv² For altitude (h), and the gravitational constant (g) E=mgh Therefore, 4x the altitude is roughly equivalent to launching the missle at 2x the speed. However, drag is also a v² function, so altitude is defintely better.

[@THE-X-Force]

Now cover the new U.S. "Mako" hypersonic missile?

[@THE-X-Force]

@SaintFluffySnow I don't think you know the whole situation, Fluffy. Regardless .. it's a functional MANEUVERABLE hypersonic missile that will soon be in American inventory

[@THE-X-Force]

@SaintFluffySnow So dense that light bends around you Goodbye time waster forever

[@pike100]

​@SaintFluffySnow We found the Chinese troll!

[@johnsilver9338]

Best of all 2 MAKOs can fit inside F-35 or even F-22, so they can get much closer to their targets before launching the missile which gives the enemy less response time unlike with long range anti-ship ballistic missile.

[@arbelico2]

Greetings from Spain. The question is whether the SM-6 can be incorporated into the B-21s and the F-22s or F-35s can designate targets.

[@MrDJAK777]

It probably can on the b21 definitely wouldn't fit internally on the f22 though kinda defeating the point but they probably wouldnt get them if they could, navy and air Force don't have the greatest history when it comes to sharing. The f35 definitely can and will do that though.

[@jayvee8502]

​@@MrDJAK777I think the F35/F-22 can carry it externally but that would destroy the stealthines of the F35/F22 which is it's primary asset.

[@trevor21241842]

So forget the 5th and 6th gen US fighter jets… because now the 4th gen jets are all far deadlier than any other countries jets by itself 😂😂 we’ve come pretty far since kitty hawk.

[@mrspeigle1]

Meh. Lotta folks talked about using 4th gen as missle trucks for 5th and 6th gen planes. Real story is how us needs to expand sm6 production

[@Jadefox32]

​@@mrspeigle1depends entirely on if new facilities ate needed or if new lines can be fit into existing sites. New means 2-5 years to both build and build up the expertise of those working on the weapons. expanding existing means 2-3 years just to add then bring in and train up to a moderate competency level. If factory automation becomes a year then 2 years to build the facility.

[@gishjalmr5628]

Due to the missile weight, I believe the aircraft will only carry two of these missiles with the remainder being AIM-120 and AIM-9. This of course will dramatically reduce any stealth characteristics of the aircraft.

[@SlavicCelery]

That's why the stealth aircraft spotting closer to the hot zones aren't carrying them. Stealth missile trucks, could effectively be relatively near by and keep the missiles in a stealth bay.

[@BasedF-15Pilot]

No Hornet has the electrical generation or the radar wattage required to use this missile at 200nm, neither does it have the BVR target ID tech that single mission jets like the F-15 and F-22 have.

[@joshpetersen5968]

Good point, but with modern datalinks and doctrine, it's likely the Super Hornet would only be a missile truck. The one actually locking up the target and relaying the target data would be the F-35 or other stealth craft(maybe a drone) much closer to the target.

[@BasedF-15Pilot]

@@joshpetersen5968 We've had issues with F-35s keeping up due to their range. F-35s are a second line situational awareness platform, like a distributed AWACS. But, they're usually behind us and we relay SA back to them. In order for them to be up front they have to drag tankers closer and sometimes into danger.

[@joshpetersen5968]

@@BasedF-15Pilot I was not aware of that, so thank you.

[@Whiskey11Gaming]

​@@BasedF-15Pilotthe USN F35C has nearly 2k pounds more gas and a larger wing than the USAF F35A... while they haven't given a different combat radius, no doubt the F35C has a larger combat radius than the F35A. Still, an A model F35 has a combat radius in excess of 600nmi... sure, that's not the 1000nmi combat radius of an F15C with two bags, but compared to a Super Hornet's combat radius measured in feet off the deck (hyperbole, but still an insanely short 525nmi in A2A and less than 400 nmi in strike), 600+nmi is a lot... also those pesky F35 can carry wing pylons and hopefully those new pylon-less drop tanks can retain stealth after being jettisoned.

[@fidel-3470]

Consider this: the F-15EX, operated out of Portland, OR (suppose, flying directly above the city), could launch a missile and hit a target crossing the border of Canada. That's the range of this missile.. I personally think this missile will be used primarily in a defensive role, where attackers are detected moving toward a known target like a carrier group or FOB, the data link providing the tracking.

[@OttoKreml]

The US should focus less on niche wonder weapons, and more on these cross compatible broadly applicable weapons that allow us to more effectively use our flexible force structure. If it does the job slighly sub-optimally, but it can do more jobs, then it's worth it.

[@TMHedgehog]

I think this weapon makes total sense, gives you an option to slap something out of the air with a longer stand-off distance.

[@OttoKreml]

@@TMHedgehog I mean, I was was supporting the weapon.

[@Nathan-vt1jz]

They really need to do both. It’s all about needed capability and creating new capabilities for future tech. Stealth fighters are the product of niche military development projects.

[@nsatoday]

The SM series is already in inventory. This is just air launching and a software update. The SM-6 is NOT new

[@OttoKreml]

@@Nathan-vt1jz Stealth is useful. But It's much less useful than it is commonly made out to be. It maybe roughly triples the effectiveness of a plane, while doubling it's maintenance cost. Just as an example of what I'm talking about, the javelin anti tank missile is very impressive on paper but unfortunately it uses a custom proprietary battery that cannot be recharged and only lasts 15 minutes. Which sucks. There was no reason to build that part from the ground up. And I think we should rather be on the opposite end of the spectrum and develop a multi-role man portable missile that can hit both air targets and vehicles, and it should use mostly off the shelf parts and open software. Even if it can't pen modern tanks, it can still take out sensors. And would make even squad level infantry capable of a broad range of missions. Again, playing in to that western flexible force structure.

[@nicholasmaude6906]

In regards to an air-launched SM-6 with its' Mk-72 booster, Binkov, what could be done is to encapsulate the whole missile inside an expendable tubular canister that would function as both a storage container and as a launch-tube (Which would be jettisoned after the missile has been launched).

[@torakazu2269]

China: “No one will outrage us!” *Americans do smekalka but it actually works*

[@The136th]

It still has less range than PL-17, funny he didn't mention that lol

[@persistentwind]

​@@The136thuhm he said the opposite.

[@yonghominale8884]

A F-15 would be a good choice but what about a modified B-1B Lancer with AESA radar and datalink. It could carry a dozen AIM-174.

[@soulsphere9242]

B-1B heading towards retirement.

[@babalonkie]

Shame it cant fit inside a F-22 or F-35...

[@dreamhunter2973]

That is where the F 15ex comes in..

[@shaxie_jesus]

say hello to lockheeds mako missle

[@jpmangen]

The F35 will be supplying the F18’s with shared data so its ability to launch is vastly greater. The stealth fighter can use the new Mako missiles.

[@5KAmenshawn]

Could fit inside a loitering B21, use the data link, and hit relayed targets.

[@babalonkie]

@@shaxie_jesus Got to actually build and test it yet... it's only in concept stage.

[@nunya3163]

For anti-Ship roles, one would think that using an extended range version of the AARGM-ER, ant-radar missile against ships would be quite effective at blinding the enemy. You either take out, or force them to turn off their larger ship based radars, and their picket line of ships become nothing but targets.

[@pabcu2507]

For the UFOs obviously

[@zach11241]

Fucking Greys will never know what probed them!

[@PineWind45]

These missiles with CCAs would be insane

[@teddy.d174]

It’s likely nearly 250-300mi, because the US often shows a much lower number than its official capability.

[@volvo245]

Any basis to that or just your unfaltering trust in American wonder weapons?

[@teddy.d174]

@@volvo245 I edited my comment to 250-300mi. Alex Hollings from Sandboxx News stated a range of 275mi and possibly more. He’s really plugged into the American defense industry and is very trustworthy when it comes to reporting. He has a vast amount of sources inside the defense industrial base, as well as the military. He’s a former Marine.

[@teddy.d174]

@@volvo245 FYI…America often understates the range of their weapons. Most well out range the stated number in publicly available information.

[@Iamabot4708]

​@@volvo245I'm American and I agree we repeat this statement a lot but I've never actually seen proof that it's true

[@david7384]

​@@teddy.d174wow sounds like he would definitely be honest all the time and never hype the weapons he is paid to 😂

[@spaceweasel]

This is BIG!

[@russfranck3491]

Don’t we want to keep this information secret from our competitors

[@furinick]

It's cheaper to not fight a war so you make your opponents fear you instead of thinking they can beat you easily

[@cedriceric9730]

Knowledge of a weapon is also a weapon 😂 It's even more powerful

[@killman369547]

@@furinick Except they don't fear us. China doesn't fear us because they can run us out of soldiers 10 times over through attrition. And Russia doesn't fear us because they have 6000 nukes.

[@dillonhatfield7724]

They already know, we keep this type of info on SIPR. We might as well give it directly to the Chinese

[@bgtcsjm]

This is probably a secret for developing nations. Surely not something the US would consider as competitors.

[@luckymansogo]

I wonder if this will also increase the US anti ballistic missile capability. Like how much extra range up into space will it gain from being launched by high altitude aircraft. Will this affect the balance of nuclear war etc. would love a follow up video

[@lathelarson4009]

"Steathy J20 fighters." I see what you did there lol

[@MeritocraticPaty]

Cope

[@stupidburp]

Launch AIM-174 from an F-15EX and it could potentially be released from very high altitude and at high speed. Standard loadout is unlikely to be more than 2 missiles because of the weight and cost. Instead it could supplement them with many AIM-260 and a few short range missiles and some extra fuel pods and a sensor pod.

[@Kashinathan-y4x]

4 views in one min Bro fell off It's a joke. Comrade binkov never falls off

[@YongLi-np3wg]

Compared to the PLAAF PL-17, the AIM-174 is a smaller missile, with an absolutely and proportionally smaller rocket engine and an airframe with more drag. Compared to the J-16, the F/A-18E/F has inferior kinematics in terms of speed and altitude, which can be further degraded by the use of external fuel tanks. In conclusion, the PL-17 likely outranges the AIM-174.Conversely, at the same range, the PL-17 likely retains more speed and greater lethality. The AIM-174 narrows the USAF/USN's air to air missile gap with the PLAAF/PLANAF, but does not quite close it.

[@SlavicCelery]

We're going to have to wait for the J-16 to get some combat time to assess its stealth characteristics. It could be significantly better or worse than reported. It's not meant to be anything other than, we don't fully know. We don't know exactly the capability of some AA systems, nor the latest Chinese airframes. So it's sort of a guessing game.

[@danwelterweight4137]

This missile means absolutely nothing. 1. The PL 17, the PL-21 and the R37m Missiles all have ranges are well over 200 miles. 2. just a few weeks ago the Pentagon admitted that 40% of all the semi conductors used in US weapons are manufacturered in and come and from Mainland China. I can guarantee you that this new missile relies on semiconductors that are also manufactured in China as well. Raytheon the largest missile manufacturer in the US said testified in the US congress that it is impossible for the United States at this time to replace Mainland Chinese semiconductors from US weapons. And here is the best part the other 60% of all the semiconductors used in US weapons thst don't come form Mainland China a lot of them them are probably manufactured in Taiwan. The Island that is only 78 miles off Mainland China and will be easily blockaded by the PLA from the US in case of war. The Houthis don't even have a Navy and the US navy can't even break the Houthi blockade of Israel in the Red Sea how the hell are going to break a Chinese a blockade of Taiwan in a war against China? It gets even better, the US doesn't only rely on Chinese industries to provide them with Chinese semiconductor to build their weapons. The US also relies in Chinese rare earths and refineries to manufacture many of the key components needed for American equipment and weapons for its military. The US also relies on Russia for titanium for its submarines production as well. So enjoy your weapons and your missiles Americans, a lot do the key components on those weapons are made China or Russia. 🤣 What wins wars is industrial capacity, access to resources and raw materials and manpower The US can't compete with the Chinese on any of those categories. China's industrial capacity is 3x that of the United States, it's manpower is almost 5x larger than the United States and it's access to resources and raw materials from Russia and the rest of Eurasia are greater than the United States access to raw materials. In every category the US is outmatched by China You go to war with China and China will out manufacture the US in weapons and ammunition into oblivion in full scale war production. China will mobilize tens of millions and tens of millions of men into the PLA and they will have support form Russia's massive industrial capacity and raw materials. Not just Russia, but all of Eurasia. Good luck with that. You are going to need it.

[@ScentlessSun]

Everything you have written is meaningless. The USA has been spending more on defense than the next 10 countries combined since the Soviet Union collapsed. That is not something a rival can quickly catch up to. The USA has enormous stockpiles of weapons and stealth bombers to deliver those weapons. China’s economy, industrial base, and military capabilities would quickly collapse after they are cut off from oil. That is very easy to do. Pipelines from Russia aren’t sufficient to supply China with what it needs, but even if they were sufficient they could be easily destroyed by stealth bombers. So where does that leave China? Getting oil from the Middle East, that is blockaded by the U.S. Navy. Good luck winning a naval battle far away from the Chinese mainland with the U.S. Navy and its naval airforce. China’s strategic oil reserves can support the country 100 to 120 days. Then the people of China would begin to quickly be unhappy with their leaders choices. The people of the USA love Chinese people, but the idea that the Chinese military can push the USA’s military around is laughable. China was doing much better before Xi got this idea in his head of taking on the USA’s military dominance. The Chinese-USA trade relationship that helped make China the factory of the world has begun separating and it shouldn’t have been this way.

[@tluangasailo3663]

Those Chinese semiconductors are subcontracted by US defense firms. They aren't special and can be replaced anytime by Western suppliers. They probably buy from China due to the price......on any semi conductor related stuffs, China is behind US.

[@tluangasailo3663]

Those semiconductors are subcontracted by US defense firms. They aren't special and can be replaced anytime by Western suppliers. They probably buy from China due to the price ......

[@tluangasailo3663]

None of the PL-17, PL-21, or R-37 missiles have a range of 250 miles, and none of them can perform anti-surface, anti-ship, anti-aircraft, anti-cruise missile, and anti-ballistic missile functions like the AIM-174. This is the best long-range air-to-air missile."

[@danwelterweight4137]

@@tluangasailo3663 Wrong, the R37m, PL 17 and PL 21 missiles all have 250 miles ranges and the fact is the the AIM - 174 is still made with semiconductors manufactured in China. Df-17 and DF-26 anti ship ballistic missiles have ranges over 1500 miles to 2500 miles. Meaning that they can hit American moving ships from almost 2500 miles distance The US is still far behind Russia and China in hypersonic missile technology. Pentagon admitted 40% of all semi conductors used in American weapons are made in China. The other 60% of all the other semiconductors, a huge portion of them are manufacturered in Taiwan, 78 miles off Mainland China. Same thing for the vast majority of of all the rare earths used to manufacture American weapons. In a full scale war you will not be able to out manufacturer China in weapons and ammunition. And most Chinese manufacturing is automated. They have superior industrial capacity, their manufacturing is more automated than you. They have superior manufacturing and industrial logistics, more STEMS, more skilled labor and much bigger population than yours. China is not a country. It's an entire continent. And with Russia by their side you will be committing suicide if you go up against them You can't even keep up with Russian weapons production. You don't have the industrial base for a peer to peer war. You don't have the facilities and your don't have the skilled labor and the STEMS cadre for it. This is not 1942.

[@spydude38]

I could imagine that using a stealthy uprated version of the X-47 to haul a load of AIM-174s could provide a potent force multiplier capability.

[@TheGrindcorps]

lol, Russia has had this capability and range for decades. It’s crazy how far the USA has fallen behind Russia and China after wasting all that time and money getting their ass kicked by goat herders.

[@MeritocraticPaty]

Most of top notch US engineering and scientist from golden age are retiring, F-35 was the last thing they can have before gone, and they can't replace with modern low quality gen z in the US.

[@johnsilver9338]

You forgot whole USSR not just Russia alone lost to the same goat herders in Afghanistan.

[@TheGrindcorps]

@@johnsilver9338 Russian Federation =/= USSR or RSFSR.

[@johnsilver9338]

@@TheGrindcorps You mean the same Russia that have its Black Sea fleet at the bottom of the sea right now?

[@fightingfalcon1986]

I hope the new AAM will fit all the US military multirole fighter, from the older F-15 and F-16 to the newest ones.

[@MMA-gb6to]

almost all Chinese anti-ship missiles have thousands of miles of range, so what's the point? shoot down a Chinese airplane and then ask them not to retaliate with their anti-ship missiles? 🤣

[@kameraldbahrul3432]

Well what you expect from this biased channel

[@Legion617]

@@kameraldbahrul3432 the comment you responded to is literally biased itself

[@nsatoday]

If you can’t see it you can’t shoot it. You do realize that the Navy doesn’t just sit there and neither does the air wing.

[@iddykejo8173]

​@@nsatoday yeah but ance u shot down that chinese jet ur stealth is pretty much gone n they have satellites n its not like guam or other airbases will gradually grow limbs or a carrier group will land a jet then sail at 100knots out of the china sea those DF-17 are in the thousands

[@Legion617]

@@iddykejo8173 real military specialist right here guys

[@johnsilver9338]

Their is still Raytheon's LREW or Boeing's LRAAM. So it may be only USN that use AIM-174s for their versatility as it can also be used for anti-ship role.

[@barriewright2857]

This makes the possibility of war closer. And could invite one.

[@ajbertelson9871]

wonder if this will fit in a raider or b2.

[@syko8939]

Now wait till its adopted into a rapid dragon style system with f35 out front relaying targeting data.

[@maestromecanico597]

The Tomcat is not coming back. Time to rethink the F-15N Sea Eagle?

[@Ironpancakemoose]

Ive been saying for years that the US needs to slap a AESA radar on a B-52 and fill it up with SM-6s

[@fastsheep3964]

well... It's a rather impressive response.

[@guyb7995]

It's almost more about the RADAR limits now. Time to upgrade the Super Hornets radar to become a Super Duper Hornet with the surplus AN/APG-81's soon to be coming out of F-35s getting upgraded to Block 4.

[@Mgrow]

Probably from about 200 miles away I would imagine.

[@cppcompile]

🎯 Key points for quick navigation: 00:00:00 *🌟 US Navy's New Long-Range Missile Introduction* - The US Navy has introduced its longest-range air-to-air missile based on the SM-6. - The new weapon is the heaviest of its kind, with sightings indicating an air-launched variant under development. - The video will delve into the comparison and potential use of this missile in enhancing US military capabilities. 00:02:19 *🚀 Design and Functionality of the Missile* - The missile leverages the aircraft's capabilities as its booster. - An adaptation allows it to maintain a significant size and weight, potentially the largest air-to-air missile ever created. - High-altitude launches improve missile range, demonstrating adaptability and strategic advantage. 00:05:37 *📏 Missile Performance and Range Comparison* - Outperformance of the SM-6 against previous air-to-air missiles like the Phoenix and AMRAAM is discussed. - Comparison is made against international counterparts, highlighting the missile's potential dominance in range. - Projected range based on various missile tests suggests remarkable advancements and strategic impact. 00:11:11 *🛰️ Strategic Implications of Extended Range* - The missile's range shifts US strategic options, allowing strikes from a safer distance. - Stealth and non-stealth jets could engage from distances previously unreachable during conflict scenarios. - Its introduction could redefine US tactics and response capabilities in global theaters. 00:15:08 *⚔️ Multi-role Capabilities and Future Potential* - A174's integration with networked systems broadens its tactical applications. - Possible roles include attacking high-value aerial and naval targets, and intercepting fast-moving threats. - Development pace and planned integration into various platforms suggest significant upcoming changes in military operations. Made with HARPA AI

[@thomasmunger9246]

Fire this missle make the enemy defensive close the gap right?

[@speckbacon9881]

recently i learned that the blue colored strip on US munitions (like in those show in in the first minute of the video) means its an inert weapon filled with concrete or similar to simulate the weight and aerodynamics of the munition.

[@davidyu3815]

Chinese Air to Air missile: Oh? Is that so? Then allow me introduce myself. My name is the PL-21 or PL-XX. Range 300 km to 400 km. Russia: Don't forget my missile, the R-37. Range is 400 km and hypersonic too.

[@oco8783]

He literally mentions them...

[@TeoDP7]

AIM-174 also gonna have 400 km range

[@matthewsecord7641]

Jane's reported the F14 could travel with a 400 mile radar and track 6 targets in 1986. I don't remember the claims for the phoenix missile but i seem to remember that it was claimed the Phoenix could touch a target any other machine 200 miles before any other system could detect the F14.

[@matthewsecord7641]

I no longer own the book collection.

[@Whiskey11Gaming]

400 miles for the AWG-9 is very optimistic... 200 miles against very large targets was more likely. The AN/APG71 pushed this out further, but we know anecdotally that the F14D IRST has 200nmi range and resolution to pick up a tanker refueling aircraft and the aircraft waiting... so the APG71 is probably able to detect large objects closer to the 300 mile range. The AIM54 though is quite limited in its range... the longest distance at launch confirmed was 125nmi... the kinematics are there for longer ranges, but the battery life of the missile to power the seeker and fins isn't...

[@jabloko992]

The missile knows where it is at all times. It knows this because it knows where it isn't...

[@bubpori5105]

Still sounds like there's a Gap in a Heavy Launch Fighter from a Carrier to Optimize Long Range Performance !

[@SoloRenegade]

the booster would also interfere with the missile coming off the rail during air launch.

[@grenmoyo3968]

It's a nice missile, but everything points to a potential downside on its size. The missile will hinder the manuerverability of the jet in the air by placing stress on the wings. This isn't different than fully loading a superhornet now, just the fact that 1 SM6 is massive compared to other missiles.

[@rogerthat4545]

Why would you need to worry about maneuverability 200 miles away? What do you think puts more stress on the wings, carrying a big missile, or a 9g turn?

[@micwclar]

But wouldn't the range allow to fire and forget, RTB, re-arm and come back up for the cheap planes, who now are without their AWACS to help them against the F-18s.

[@johnsilver9338]

Its for large and slower aircraft. Against fighter jets, F-35s carrying AIM-120D3 or Meteor especially upcoming AIM-260 are more than enough.

[@Whiskey11Gaming]

​@@johnsilver9338I wouldn't put ANY faith into your argument at all... that same criticism was launched at the AIM54... a missile with 21G worth of maneuverability and fucking ACM modes to be used in dogfights... the ship launched version is designed to go after anything which breathes air from surface ships to fighters... this air launched version will not be less capable...

[@apuuvah]

Just make air-to-air version of Stunner / Skyceptor already!

[@arghost9798]

That a really good weapon against Balloon

[@karlbrundage7472]

Not gonna lie: This was the biggest "black swan" in the current era. All of the adversary nations, and a few allies, were convinced that US aircraft were limited to the 50Km range of the AIM-120 and based all of their tactics on that fact. Now they need to address the fact that they can be targeted and killed at more than three times that range, by an interceptor that can defeat ECCM and active-avoidance ballistic warheads.

[@pike100]

Black swan?

[@posmoo9790]

a rim-7 ground launched (no booster) has a claimed range of 26m. a aim-7 aa missile (same missile essentially) has a claimed range of 70km. that's an increase of 2.69x by firing from a jet.

[@youssefkamel3216]

Make video about Egypt 🇪🇬 and Ethiopia 🇪🇹 please 🙏

[@Idahoguy10157]

I’m wondering if the AIM-174 will fit into a B-21 and the new B-21?

[@bremnersghost948]

a missile so big that it could be more economical to carry them on B1b, B2, B21 and B52 in a kind of reverse Chrome Dome defensive role, most of the time.