This has an Unexpected Feature...

The AIM-174B has been given a warm reception by all the observer. But it is a strange proposition. So, let's have a look into the new AIM-174 from a not so common angle.
Go Fund Me for my first book! gofund.me/11d5...
Join this channel to support it:
/ @millennium7historytech
Support me on Patreon / millennium7
One off donation with PayPal www.paypal.com...
Join the Discord server / discord
AFFILIATE LINK:
Buy an Aircraft Model at Air Models! airmodels.net/...
----------------------------
Ask me anything!
Take part to the community Q&A clicking the link below!
forms.office.c...
--------------------
Visit the subreddit!
/ millennium7lounge
---------------------
All images and additional video segments contained in the Thumbnails and/or B-roll segments are used in strict compliance with the appropriate permissions and licenses required from the source and in accordance with the KZbin Partner Program, Community guidelines & KZbin terms of service.

[@Nocturne4481]

Math and simulations are good, but if you want precise data for classified military hardware, the best way is still to throw a random number in the war thunder forums and wait for the manual to be posted in response :)

[@Millennium7HistoryTech]

😂

[@olisk-jy9rz]

Incredibly overused, stale and unfunny joke. It isn't even based in reality! There's been only one time some kind of actual classified information was leaked, about the Challenger tank. All the other times the "leaks" were basic user manuals everybody could already find with a quick search online.

[@Pincer88]

Spot on! 😂

[@ryansmithza]

Add that range to the stealth capabilities of the F22 and F35 as well as any stealth loyal wingman and there is a nice competitive advantage over Russian and Chinese stealth technology.

[@DIREWOLFx75]

@@ryansmithza *lol* "and there is a nice competitive advantage over Russian and Chinese stealth technology" I can't say much about Chinese stealth, but Su-57 has better stealth than F-35, and already has DOZENS of R-37 and R-37M kills. While Nato can't track them. At all. Even knowing where to look. You also forget that these missiles completely ruin the stealth of any aircraft carrying it.

[@christophmahler]

Love the statistical analysis approach... US Secretary of the Navy to US Congress: 'After evaluating near peer competitor capabilities to limit carrier operations in our mission to ensure freedom of navigation, we can now declare that for the Fighter/Attack F/A-XX program, we propose to procure an airframe that is large enough to carry three 2000lbs guided missiles in an internal bay and that features an outstanding combat range that enables interception of long range aviation bombers and secondary deep strike missions, all at supersonic speed' US Senate Committee on Armed Services: 'You are proposing a reactivation of the F-111B program ?' US Secretary of the Navy: 'What ? Nooo...'

[@mountedpatrolman]

The Admiral leading the F/A-XX program is a prior Tomcat pilot, and it sounds like he's pushing for a Tomcat II style jet in capabilities. That indicates a stealthy long-range platform capable of carrying six of these AIM-174B's.

[@aflyingcowboy31]

Slight correction, they are around 1800 - 1890lbs, not 2000lbs.

[@nudgeunit]

Will be interesting to see how close the weight/range prediction formula ends up being. My bet is that if it's less than 620km, it will still be above 520km.

[@christophmahler]

@@mountedpatrolman "The Admiral leading the F/A-XX program is a prior Tomcat pilot, and it sounds like he's pushing for a Tomcat II style jet in capabilities." That's an interesting statement. I had recently commended this channel to consider a 'what if' video on Grumman's 'Advanced Strike Fighter' ASF-14 Super Tomcat proposal of the mid 1990s - to be procured alongside the F-22A - and possibly the now realized F-15 EX (derived from export variants of the F-15E - leaving the F-16 as a 'budget' light fighter with super-maneuverability). On that timeline, the F/A-18 (A-F/EA) and F-35 programs would not have been invested into (any further), preserving funding for said Tomcat and - maybe a larger, expandable and _exported_ - F-22 Raptor (an actual stealth platform with superior flight characteristics). I'm unsure how useful a swing-wing design would still be for carrier operations or if delta-wing configurations and thrust vectoring made them completely obsolete - I suppose that question makes it a valid topic to return to, in this aerodynamics related channel... It's certainly a study in procurement politics in a political climate that was arguably primed to escalate after the end of the Cold War (expanding NATO into a power vacuum of former Soviet republics). "(...) a stealthy long-range platform capable of carrying six of these AIM-174B's" Something could be done with the engine RADAR signatures, angled geometry and 'absorbent' airframe coatings - but the F-22 would have been outright the better platform for low observability... to have 6 very long range missiles in an internal bay would make for a huge aircraft to have on the current carrier classes - more akin to the F-111B (supported by low speed swing-wing geometry at landing, but infamously under-powered for anything but 'Beyond Visual Range' engagements) - hence my satire skit... EDIT: given the the 35 trillion US debt (demanding soon more than a billion in servicing each year - and rapidly rising) and the ever increasing instability in global trade due to geopolitical decoupling (US sanctions and BRICS bloc formation), I suspect that neither a 'Next Generation Air Dominance' airframe nor a naval F/A-XX will be developed to serial production before international affairs escalate into a major global shooting war (initially conventional and 'irregular', but as such leaving the US and it's allies in a worse 'Correlation of Forces' than in the 1980s) - the obscure official remarks on these advanced and costly programs as well as recent platform life cycle expansions (F-22 upgrades, despite being out of production) can be interpreted as an indirect confirmation...

[@christophmahler]

@@aflyingcowboy31 "Slight correction, they are around 1800 - 1890lbs, not 2000lbs." Granted, I rounded the numbers to leave some 50kg wiggle room for the serial model - not sure, how that would relate to a 857kg projectile...

[@Slowekistan]

Hard to believe the old AGM-78 is still flying.

[@nudgeunit]

RIM-66 standard missile airframe been basically the same since 1965! Interesting, since it seems a little out of the ordinary as far as missile body designs go.

​@@nudgeunit If it ain't broke, standardize it and treat it like LEGO.

[@aleksandrs1422]

I'm a simple man. I see an M7 video, I push a like

[@linuxuberuser]

M7 = A+

[@jordostan]

Why do people make this exact comment on sooooo many videos?

[@tommynuker]

Simpletons, assemble!!!

[@justfly7730]

That's right. ❤

[@itshawkeye9129]

Based

[@kathrynck]

The first missile picture was painted in "debris field orange", which means it was meant to be easy to find all the pieces. Which means it was intended to be detached, either to test separation, or to test 'fire'. Given the lack of "reference stickers" on the F-18, I lean more towards a test fire. Which means the 2020 picture shows a missile which is fairly far along in development. 2022, as a deployment goal, was already a delay for the AIM-260. The navy was already impatient with AIM-260 development pace by 2020. Propellent chemistry and nozzle design are actually _very_ highly secretive. You definitely cannot read about the latest propellent and nozzle designs in a book. So they have more impact than you'd think. The different ranges of the AIM-120 models display this pretty strongly. AIM-174B is a LOT bigger than the AIM-260 will be. I wouldn't consider the Navy's choice to deploy the 174 as a rejection of the 260, but as a whole new class of air to air missiles. F-15 could carry 4, if using the rarely mounted outer wing pylon. Or even 6 (if a FAST pack was modified specifically for it, that's the conformal tanks for the F-15). Technically 7, if you deleted the centerline fuel tank. F-15's are payload monsters. Development time of the 174B would be hugely expedited by the fact that it's a modification of an SM-6, and not an all-new missile design. 4 years may seem very 'rushed', but considering how much of the work was already completed in the SM-6, 4 years may be a normal development timeline. Lack of imagery of the AIM-260 suggests one of two possibilities to me: 1) it's visual shape reveals features which DARPA want's to delay becoming public for as long as possible (like dual-staging perhaps). 2) the visual shape would reveal RCS characteristics, implying the missile is at least _somewhat_ low observable. Or... both. But yes, the 260 is _WAY_ behind schedule, which means it's having a problem-fraught development process. And the USNavy _IS_ kinda fed up with the wait. One thing worth mentioning on range & flight profiles... at a certain point size starts to create broken math, because of the impact of having a portion of the flight time in exo-atmospheric conditions. I don't know if the 174B is large enough to get into "Ballistic-Missile-Math", but it's big enough that it might.

[@thamiordragonheart8682]

I think that for extremely long-range intercepts, the surface launched version can get high enough that it's control surfaces don't work anymore mid flight, which would imply it does do a little ballistic missile math. A high-altitude launch is generally worth significantly more energy than the booster, so I would expect the AIM-174 to do the same thing.

[@robertsneddon731]

The USN could buy the MDBA Meteor which is off-the-shelf and theoretically fits in a stealth internal bay but Not Invented Here rears its ugly head.

[@kathrynck]

@@robertsneddon731 Meteor really is pretty good. I think the R-37, and AIM-174B are in a whole different class, but I'm really curious how the Meteor will compare to the AIM-260, once info on that comes out.

[@robertsneddon731]

@@kathrynck An air-breathing ram-rocket motor provides free extra delta vee compared to classic pure-solid-fuel motors, kilogram for kilogram. Our good host didn't include Meteor in his spreadsheet calculations because it distorts the pure-solid-motor data set he was trying to extrapolate the AIM-174B's performance from. My uninformed guess is that the AIM-260 is a ram-rocket design and Lockheed Martin are finding it difficult to make it work and fit it into the twelve-foot-long straitjacket of Western stealth aircraft weapons bays (the Chinese stealth aircraft bays are 13.5 feet long). I think Boeing had a trade-show mockup missile design with funny air-breathing kinematics but AFAIK no flight hardware.

[@kathrynck]

@@robertsneddon731 Yeah, free oxidizer is a huge benefit. I don't like the 'shape' of the meteor really, it's an RCS boondoggle, and kinda awkward for internal bays. But free oxidizer is huge. I'm not sure what the AIM-260 will be like. But I'll be disappointed if it isn't either A) air breathing, or B) 2-stage. Two stage could be very strong, use a booster to get to target area, then hunt it down with an active burning second stage... that would have a really high hit probability at long distance. Might have some fancy high-G turning capacity too. Hard to say. Air breathing can be really good too though. Meteor is probably trading away 'some' solid fuel for the volume which air channels take up. And the solid propellent probably has "some" oxidizer mixed into it, and likely uses external air as a sort of 'oxidation throttle'. And at low-throttle, that does waste a bit of solid propellent (like an car engine with a bad fuel mix). So it's not saving ALL of the oxidizer delta. Probably about half. That's still a big gain though. I'd be really curious exactly how much performance the SM-6 gets from the booster on it. And how a surface-launched SM-6 compares to a plane-launched (with no booster) 174B at 50,000 ft / mach 1.1.

[@ELMS]

I have said this before, but there is nowhere else to go to get this in-depth information, presented so clearly. Outstanding! I would never have the time or ability to find this out on my own. I wasn’t able to get my KZbin support restored after losing my credit card so I did it through Patreon, and at the next highest level. It’s worth every penny. Be well, Gus!

[@jaimepm751]

We hace a previous example on a reversed way: The NASAM as a surface launched AIM-120 AMRAAM

[@downix]

The Sea Sparrow is a ship launched version of the AIM-7 Sparrow is another example, and Iran even modified the AIM-54 for surface launch.

[@Legalizeasbestos]

@@downixhell the Iranians also put HAWK missiles on F14s. And got kills with them

[@shaider1982]

Yup, Spyder sort of like NASM but with Israeli Pythons.

[@robertlortz4297]

This is the way. This is how Binkov found his calculation of about 280km.

[@Kevin-hx2ky]

The KS-172 Novator might be based on something. Not sure what though

[@edwwong1003]

I love this channel so much because it presents the most realistic or logical explanation of things, the explanations stays in the realm of logic and engineering POV which is 80% of the time, as for the 20%, those are what we process engineers call luck

[@Johnwashere-dt2ov]

Engineer here, addicted to Excel and modeling. Love your work! Your approach to calculate the possible range is ingenious!

[@vonpredator]

AWACS / Tanker swatter...

[@xyz-hj6ul]

China does not use conventional airpower to defeat threats. They use missiles (YJ-21 and DF-17/21/26), guided by space based radar in Geosynchronous Orbit (Luditance) with UAV Bistatic receivers (Divine Eagle) for resolution and discrimination. Coupled to LEO based assets (80+ Yaogan IMINT/ELINT satellites) and developing a 336nm missile to shoot down threats which have 1,000km range (Divine Eagle is a BTH system which uses OTH-B techniques) is, at best, a 'partial solution' to a non-existent problem. Not least because anything which threatens Chinese overhead is going to result in a Kessler Syndrome meltdown as it will be open season on ALL satellites and the USN, as the forward aggressor party, is far more dependent on them than China is (China also has ROTHR sites and the WZ-8 hypersonic recce drone and bottom lay sonar to track U.S. carriers in the mid-littorals, off her coastlines...). Since we can't reach the control/launch points for these systems without going beyond 500nm inland, something which would require the likes of a B-2/B-21 with all that implies (strategic nuclear warfighter platform, deep over China), if caught, the notion is even less supportable that this is an anti-HVAA sniper. If anything, it is the LREW reverse. As a missile designed to protect Spirits and Raiders, with a screen of UCAVs out front and a Raider carrying a mix of MAKO, SIAW and AIM-174B as a self protecting delivery platform to keep the doors kicked open on say an air bridge, flying supplies into Taiwan where tactical assets are too vulnerable (Kadena 400nm away) or too distant (Misawa, 1,200nm' Andersen, 1500nm) to provide constant air coverage to support a shattered ROCAF. A more likely result is simply that this NAVY MISSILE is just a discrete admission that the F/A-18E/F is nothing like a fighter, being a subsonic attack aircraft with limited legs and a huge drag factor destroying it's supersonic Ps. For which, an 1,890lb missile is the minimum needed to achieve parity with a genuinely supersonic J-16 or MiG-31 equivalent. M7 is also incorrect in his 'all things being equal' assessment of the missiles themselves. On the SM-2 Blk.IIIC the mid body is taken up with a autopilot and battery. In the SM-6 this section is labeled 'Power Control And Telemetry'. When combined with the reality of the RIM-174 limited utility against maneuvering HGV/HCM systems, you are talking about a likely very large, very powerful gyroscopic control system. Why is this important? Because in high altitude, semi-ballistic, mid course flight, the typical LRM is basically a monorail, waiting for a specific range/speed decay point to bring it back down to where it's aero controls can bite air. This makes these LRM particularly useless against threats which can make large scale velocity vector excursions, evading an inbound threat. But if you do what modern satellites do, spinning up a heavy weight (tungsten or du) mass and then precessing it in a given 'lean' of bias, you can gain _some_ steering authority back, even in a relative near-vacuum, up around 90-120,000ft, in the Mesosphere transition. i.e. Your longrange missile is not a Hail Mary pass which requires the wide receiver (target) jet to fly into it's area of terminal performance fall. Inability to compensate for massive target excursions was one of the problems with the AIM-54 Phoenix that drastically affected its use as a long range, fighter killer, in real life. Once the motor burns out, the 'Mach 5 class' speed begins to degrade quite rapidly and thus max range, against an agile target, is actually somewhere between 30-40nm, after burnout around 15-20nm (Mk.47 vs. Mk.60 motors). Speaking of which, another area where M7 is simply wrong is in assumptions of impulse seconds and plateau scheduling of propellant X. If the AIM-174B is based on RIM-174 SM-6 Blk.1A then you have a Mach 3.5 missile with a Mach 5 capability, only in the inner zone against specific classes of targets which dive right into the weapon kinematic envelope. If the AIM-174B is actually the equivalent of the RIM-174 SM-6 Blk.1B, now you have a different motor chemistry and burn rate which translates to a Mach 6-7 missile kinematic which will also greatly affect total flyout from a launch point some 10-15,000ft higher than the point (7,000ft, Mach 2) at which the Mk.72 booster can on the SAM variant finishes it's burn and separates from the primary missile stack. Again, a large part of this difference is going to be about the horrific specific excess power performance of the F/A-18E/F which goes to Ps=0 around Mach 1.15 and 20,000ft. But even the Super Hornet is going to give that missile more performance than the SAM and so this PLUS motor changes (boost sustain vs. all-boost) will dictate a vastly different performance dynamic than what the naval SAM achieves and probably also what the other missiles do. Simply because that 13.5" body diameter both accommodates a robust motor pour impulse schedule and a gyroscopic (mechanical, not RLG) midcourse 'power control' navigator which allows the missile to always seek the best range for Mach profile while retaining the ability to bunt or skid at any point and reenter a terminal endgame which the target has changed due to random tac turn or some kind of known threat awareness (any midcourse capable radar which can reach out 336nm is going to be very powerful and set off the RHAWS on the jet self defense systems, rather violently...).

[@kathrynck]

Also "bomber dissuader". Russia's use of the R-37M in Ukraine is _mostly_ to simply drive Ukrainian aircraft away from the front lines. Rather than to actually hit them. Although there have been a few hits at extreme range. Forcing an aircraft to deviate (a lot) from it's planned sortie path, generally means a mission failure, even if it's not damaged.

[@xyz-hj6ul]

>> Also "bomber dissuader". >> Alright, let's deal with this to start. It was never a generic (B-1B, B-52) bomber killer. It was a _stealth_ destroyer in the form of the B-2A Spirit and AGM-129A cruise missile. To enable this, the MiG-31BM was given the No-07 with an 800kw output from a 2,650lb, 1.10 meter antenna, FMICW radar. This is important because it translates to surveillance radar power levels with a big enough PAO cooling loop to support the CW needed to pop VLO targets at ~80nm, from above, where they are feature dense and so have a lot of compromising corner/cavity reflectors. Second, the R-37M is a able to hit 8G maneuvering targets which, using the standard metric of 5:1 G overmatch = a 40G missile. Just like AMRAAM. Why people have no problem believing that a 25ft, 19", 3,900lb 48N6DM (S-400 missile) can be deadly against fighters but not a 13ft, 15", 1,120lb R-37M Axehead is not, boggles the mind. Not least because they are both Mach 6+ capable weapons which, at the end of their 100km run arrive with similar Mach 3.5+ terminal energy. It is terminal velocity and structural hardening (thick bodies) which enable effective tail control deflections to bring the warhead into range, not necessarily small size/mass. i.e. Having a lot of speed lets you cut the corner on threat evasions. R-37M have shot down Pershing II ballistic missile simulators. A directionally entrained (forward firing) warhead, which fires a 100m spray of fragments, like a shotgun through the seeker pointing angle, also renders traditional 'contact vs. proximity fuse detonation' meaningless as the missile plunges straight down from above where a stealthy cruise missile is all but invisible against the clutter. Firing the warhead straight into the cockpit of a 3-5m2 fighter is child's play by comparison. >> Russia's use of the R-37M in Ukraine is mostly to simply drive Ukrainian aircraft away from the front lines. Rather than to actually hit them. Although there have been a few hits at extreme range. Forcing an aircraft to deviate (a lot) from it's planned sortie path, generally means a mission failure, even if it's not damaged. >> Starting July 02, 2022, when they scored their first kill, the Russians brought MiG-31s into Belbek AB in Southern Crimea and began to cut a swath thru the ZSU (Ukrainian Air Force). Rapidly removing the low level lawnmower option to Ukrainian CAS/BAI strikers, all along the front. It was not random that the Ukrainians became obsessed with drone, commando and missile battery strikes on the Russian fighter fields in the peninsula at this time. As a series of Kyiv Post editorials on the Axehead missile noted: 'It's fat like a tuna, it's no good because it can't maneuver!'. Suddenly became: 'You can beat it if you can just see it!'. Before finally collapsing into panic with: 'Well, maybe they're about to run out!'. This progression coincided with the rise in Russian use of the weapon, both on the Foxhound and the Flanker E and would reach a crescendo in October 2022 when up to six of these weapons were being fired per day. The ZSU had begun the war with 45 MiG-29 and 25 Su-27. By September 13, 2022, as the first of the Geran 2/Shahed 136 long range drone strikes began, they were already scrambling madly for 'spare parts' donations from ex-WARPAC countries like Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland who, together, delivered about 40 MiG-29A/C jets in knock-down form and yet, by the new year, the ZSU still only had ~50 jets. The reason? The R-37M had all but annihilated the Ukrainian Air Force at a time when those jets were already switching to defensive counter air missions to try and shoot down as many Gerans as they could while the Ukrainian Air Defense switched from medium level to low level emphasis to focus on these small drones with 90lb warheads and 2,500km ranges. There are multi-ace MiG-31 crews with 9 or more R-37M kills each. MiG-29s, Su-24s, Su-25s, even Su-27 Flankers. The U.S., already 'concerned' over growing certainty that high power fighter radars could track the F-22 (Germany, Typhoon CAPTOR-M, Red Flag, 2012; Sweden JAS-39C/D PS-05, Red Flag, 2014) and worried about the PL-15 now began an urgent effort to speed the AIM-260 into service and a followon effort (LREW) which would produce a competitive VLRAAM, to provide the mis-labeled A-18E/F bomber with 'fighter like' BVR capability, despite having a PS=0 capability of Mach 1.15 and 20,000ft. The APG-79V4 (Gallium Nitride, AESA, 15kw) radar and AIM-174B being the monstrous: 18ft, 1,890lb, 13.5" LRM result. Meanwhile, the Su-35S and Su-30SM2 also gained R-37M capability, despite having nothing to do with internal strategic air defense mission as purely VKS and AVMF fighters. Why would you do that if the Axehead is only good vs. 'bombers, tankers and AWACS'? Their No-35 Irbis (20kw) and No-11M Bars (12kw) still offering in excess of 50nm first kill capability, simply because the Mach 6.7 Axehead is so blisteringly fast that it can outpace the 'skinny missile' AMRAAM, Meteor and MICA by upwards of 15-20 seconds to A-Pole seeker autonomy, even when fired in a loft to gain maximum range. A key to the modern, long range, missile being a new 'gyro navigator' which is not simply a precision PNT midcourse system but probably literally incorporating a heavy-metal gyroscopic device to allow missiles flying at the edge of the stratosphere the ability to track evading targets while their controls are nearly useless due to the thin air. Indeed, both the R-37M and the AIM-174B mention 'new navigator' capability as key to the weapon's incredible range performance (on the latter, the relevant section of the missile is referred to as 'power control and telemetry', indicating offboard midcourse guidance, replacing the previous SM-2 Blk.IIIC 'Autopilot And Battery' section).

[@snowchi2792]

​​@@xyz-hj6ulI do like your points but the F/A-18 is not a subsonic bomber, quite the contrary. While yes, thrust to weight ratio is low, it will exceed Mach 1 at practically any altitude except the deck with combat load and sustains it's speed very well once fast. It's an extremely maneuverable aircraft with a better ability to point its nose in a sustained way than almost any other aircraft. I don't see what it lacks that makes it a "bomber". It is a multi-role aircraft and AIM-174 gives it a larger capability BVR. Hornet was most likely the easiest platform to integrate the system on and it may well be brought to other aircraft later.

[@kathrynck]

@@xyz-hj6ul You make a lot of counter-points to things I haven't typed. Like an enormous amount. Are you using my post as a proxy to argue with other opinions you disagree with? Or are you straw-manning? ___ "Bomber Dissuader" : When you fire a missile at an airborne target which is 200km or further away ...even at mach 6, the target has a LOT of time to adjust their position, making hit probability actually quite abysmal. Just do the math on the travel time, and bare in mind that the mach 6 figure is peak speed, not average speed. Now, understand the kinematic circumstance of the missile. It follows an arc not unlike artillery, in order to reach such distances with a solid rocket motor. The R-37 or AIM-174 are _not_ cruise missiles. They build up momentum, and then lob themselves into the path of the target, where the target _will_ be, assuming it doesn't change course. The terminal phase of the flight path of the missile corrects for changes in the position of the target. IE: it starts homing in on the target, and guiding itself towards an intercept, as it approaches the target area. This expends a lot of kinetic energy, traded away to maneuver into an intercept path with the target. And it's "ok" to expend a bunch of energy to maneuver like that, when it's very near the end of it's flight path, and the energy expenditure of reaching out to long range is over and done with. It's also becoming more maneuverable as it descends into thicker atmosphere, allowing for such maneuvering to intercept... but this thicker air also robs kinetic energy from the missile. Just to be clear, here I am talking about ANY and EVERY missile which is trying to intercept an aircraft at extreme range. Russian, American, Chinese, Eskimo... doesn't matter. Air launched, ground launched... doesn't matter. These are just the physics of a long range missile intercept. To an extent, the same factors come into play at more modest ranges as well, with smaller missiles. Anyway, this situation gives the target aircraft a choice. They can continue on their sortie flight path, and prosecute their mission goal... and get a big missile in their lap. OR, they can deviate from their flight path, and just "be somewhere else" when the missile arrives. ( This assumes the targeted aircraft is aware that they've been targeted ) IF the target aircraft deviates "significantly enough" from their sortie flight path, to avoid the relatively large area which will soon become dangerous (due to incoming long-range hostile missile)... they will expend significant fuel, and be way off course for their sortie. There are 2 likely outcomes: - go way off course, avoid the missile, and probably have to scrub the sortie mission due to fuel & range considerations. - continue the mission, make no 'large' deviations in flight path, stay on course, and face a reasonably high probability of getting hit. In other words - extreme range anti-aircraft missiles 'hit' desperate pilots, or 'turn away' less desperate pilots. Which is to say that extreme range anti-air missiles have a potent "dissuasive" capability. But hit probability really only applies to aircraft which are not persuaded to abandon their sortie goals. This is a potent capability. And frankly, just using the targeting radar alone, to lock a distant target... is "highly dissuasive", even if there is no missile release. At 200+ km, it would be difficult to detect a missile release or track it. Not until it gets closer. So the targeting radar itself becomes a strong battlefield element, sewing doubt and concern in the target aircraft. It can turn into a bluffing game, which extends the usefulness of the missile beyond it actually being fired. The R-37 is a superb missile. As is the AIM-174. As are a number of other missiles. I fail to see why you feel the need to "prop-up" the R-37, as a counterpoint to anything I've typed. My impression is that you're shadow-boxing an imaginary debate opponent. Don't put 'team spirit' above reason. Honestly, given the relative cost difference between R-37's and AIM-174's, the 37 is considerably more useful as a 'dissuader', as they can be used much more freely to cause 'sortie-cancelations', with less sunk-cost. Then again, the 174 gives greater protection perimeter to a carrier battle group. They both perform their intended uses well.

[@zaffazad4040]

Your vlog was very well-balanced. My two cents: the range is determined by the fuel capacity a missile can hold and the payload, electronics, warhead, etc. These factors are determined by the size; circumference, length, total weight, and airframe capacity to keep that weight. In a fighter jets class, only F15s the Sukhoi’s 30, and a few Mig 29 and 31 class aircraft can launch weapons that are around just over a ton from a bay. The current innovations in rocket motors and fuel-to-weight ratio regarding manoeuvrability and flight length are at most 350 km. Therefore, 400 km or beyond that range is not a plausible argument.

[@buzzpedrotti5401]

Using the same technique, calculate the relative range factor and range for the AIM 260 when they get it right.

[@cannonfodder4376]

The Twitter defense analyst and enthusiast circles were obnoxious for a while after the AIM-174B's reveal. Still a good analysis and decent guestimate of the AIM-174B's potential range. Although like many things in the absence of hard data, I would take such numbers with a large helping of salt. BTW not really a nitpick but I do object to the R-77-1 being called R-77M. No official literature I have seen has the current R-77-1 as the M model which seems to be reserved for the future variant for the Su-57's. A good video.

[@llamallama1509]

Great video! Though I wouldn't discount the F-16 as being unable to carry it so quickly. The F-16 is perfectly capable of carrying 4 x Mk 84 bombs which weigh 900Kg each, so it can physically carry it. Whether they bother with the necessary electronics or not is a different matter

[@geodkyt]

Yup, if you can fit it to an F-18, you can fit it to an F-16 or F-15. Figure about a year (slightly less, actually) to get it integrated and certified for those airframe, starting from the Go order to IOC on those aircraft. And that's without doing it as a crash program.

[@alb9229]

The thing with those long range missiles and their max range is that they need a powerfull enough radar to designate targets at their max range which on contrary to MiG-31BM and J-16 the F-18 does not posses even when considering the AESA APG-79 the max declared range of 150km for 1m2 RCS targets ( classified ranges are likely slightly higher but so is the case for everyone else ). So those F-18 armed with long range missiles act more like missile carriers and more likely than not they require designation of targets by external means ( ground radars or AWACS ) to achieve their envelope limits .

[@christopherchartier3017]

Or an F-35 further ahead of it that’s stealth and close enough to guide the F/A-18 launched missile

[@alb9229]

@@christopherchartier3017 Yes this could do aswell but there is a certain datalink distance limit so even this setup could not be enough to max out the missile range .

[@nudgeunit]

I suppose the idea will be to have an E-2 hawkeye in the air( something like 600+ nautical mile radar range), or maybe some sneaky f35s that can feed targeting info?

[@alb9229]

@@nudgeunit Yeah AWACS sounds like the primary solution considering the stand off range . F-35 is possible but less likely considering there is a datalink limit and the F-35 has to get much closer at which point it will be threatened by enemy AWACS and ground radars if not airborne radars .

[@technokicksyourass]

@@alb9229 Datalink from satellite relay would have quite the range.

[@cosacoim]

For the last question. F-35C in passive mode detection and linked with AWACS or ships. Then, they will process the data and send the targets to the F-18s. Hornets will launch and return to the carriers. No need to use the active radars of the Lightnings nor the Hornets. Chinese AWACS will be the main targets, but this missile would be able to strike other key assets like bombers, strike aircrafts and tankers. Surely is impressive!!!

[@fastsheep3964]

Once again a very informative video. Thanks

[@greybuckleton]

I would love to find out how the F18 flys with these massive things attached. Seems better suited to the F15EX.

[@geeussery8849]

I really enjoy these videos and find them not only informative but also entertaining. Love Otis too. Thanks fellas

[@larry4fire]

The problem with shooting at noncooperative targets at long range is that the target will have maneuvered a long distance from the time the missile was launched. To keep the missile viable, multiple course corrections will be necessary during its flight. These corrections could come from the launch aircraft, or from a remote entity. The longer the distance the more vulnerable the missile/shooter is to ECM. A more likely approach is a remote platform taking over the duties of tracking and missile corrections. Ideally this would be a stealth platform like the F-35 communicating over a stealthy, jam resistant data link. So, networked sensors could detects and correlates the target, then transmits its coordinates to a non stealthy missile truck (FA-18 or F15-EX) who launches at long range. A stealth platform in the area then takes control over the missile using weapons grade targeting data provided to it from multiple networked sensors and guides it to the target. Meanwhile the non stealthy missile trucks aircraft safely bug out of the area. The takeaway is a missile with long range is much more effective when course corrections are performed in a stealthy manner from a stealthy platform in the vicinity of the target. This allows safer launches from longer distances and these launches will not compromise the stealth platform.

[@LumineScientiaeFidei]

SM-6 production lines can build 125 units annually. That’s for ALL types. That leaves very little room to mass produce the AIM-174

[@MrAra818]

One would assume that would be scaled with the introduction of the 174B.

[@92HazelMocha]

​@MrAra818 Scaled isn't the right word. You're talking about having enough missiles for a few dozen boats vs hundreds of combat aircraft. They'd need 10 more factories to adequately produce enough.

[@kathrynck]

I wouldn't expect it to be a heavily used air to air missile at $4m cost and 2000 lbs of weight. More likely you'd see carrier battle groups trying to keep 2-4 of these aloft at all times for spot-use power projection. If the USAF gets interested though, there could always be a second line, just for these.

[@ascherlafayette8572]

@@kathrynck Never underestimate the DOD's ability to throw absurd amounts of cash at a problem. But I agree, the missile is probably a very use case specific weapon. Historically ultra-long range missiles have been intended for use against support aircraft like bombers, tankers, awacs etc. At the same time, a very effective $4 million missile that can consistently take down a $50 million aircraft is worth the investment.

[@adamc2378]

@@ascherlafayette8572 Money won't buy the skilled and experienced labor needed to massively expand production.

[@mortlet5180]

The JATM is only supposed to ever be carried internally by stealth fighters, therefore the US had the ability to completely classify everything about the missile, including what it looks like. It doesn't mean that anything went wrong with the program and it even seems like the opposite is true, considering that a large budget was allocated to construct dedicated, secret ammunition storage facilities, just to keep the AIM-260 under wraps indefinitely. This means that analysts won't even (at least for the next 30-50 years, until the last derivative with any physical resemblance to it is retired by the last NATO member) be able to determine what kind of propulsion it uses, if it is even still a single stage rocket, nor how big the aerodynamic control surfaces are (if any. It could, for example, use radial gas thrusters in stead of fins, especially on a 2-stage weapon), nor the approximate propellant to warhead mass ratio, etc.

[@namedperson1436]

While a statistical approach is never bad, it is also important to do a sanity check. The ship launched RIM 175 can reach land targets at up to 500km wich provides a ballistic D-max with booster. The booster propells the missile to mach 3.5 at 18K feet which is well ahead of what launch paramters the FA18 could provide. So this gives a ballistic D-max of

[@RichelieuUnlimited]

Are you sure the Mk 72 is that potent on its own? It looks pretty small compared to the SM-6 as a whole.

[@namedperson1436]

From what I've read and seen in tables it should be in that ballpark. Separation speed is mach 3.5, burn time for booster is 6 seconds and the average speed in the boost phase is usually close to the stated top speed. The acceleration should taper off a lot (possibly approaching 0) in the final half of the boost, but there are no public graphs over this, only regarding burn time and speed at separation.

[@andyf4292]

damn, what happens if you put an s300 airlaunched?

[@michaels.chupka9411]

I'm glad that Alfie's employment allows for vacation. bon voyage, Alfie!

[@peteford7258]

The ability to add AIM-174 was most likely speeded up by the existence of the AGM-78 Standard ARM and the XAIM97 Seekbat in the 60s-70s which were part of the Standard missile family.

[@Georgewilliamherbert]

You can get RIM-174 main stage weight pretty easily; the all up RIM-174 is 1,490-1,500 kg. Mk-72 booster is 700-710 kg. Roughly 800 kg for the main stage. Propellant weights are also known for both Mk-104 and Mk-72. The mass simulator at 857 suggests some strengthening and possibly denser propellant. There also may be motor safety restrictions tighter on the AIM-174; the RIM-174 Mk-104 motor doesn’t ignite until 6 seconds into flight and a good distance from the ship, after Mk-72 burnout. All from open sources…

[@corneliushojl7994]

Millenium research, good, very good. Thank you

[@scottjackson5173]

Nice missile! Needs an F-14, to employ this weapon to best effect.

[@darkalman]

I think the real elephant in the room here is that the F-35 and F-22 don't have the internal space to carry next-gen missiles. This means to have this capability the Air Force will have to rely on the 4th+ gen F-15EX until the NGAD is available. So did the US Air Force make a huge mistake but not designing the F-22 bay to carry a Phoenix sized missile?

[@Lifes-little-moments]

AIM-260 as well as several other ones in testing are all designed to fit internally F35 and F22 including a couple that are half the size of AIM-120, intending to double the capacity. And although we do not know the future of the ones in testing we know the AIM-260 is the highest priority for air force and navy and in opposition to what this video reports - and according to the channel with the show called Air Power - can’t remember the name off hand - tests with the AIM-260 have been highly successful and it may even already be in service with the F22 (which was the original testing platform). One more point… these super long range air to air missiles are very very unlikely to take down a maneuverable jet at extreme distances and the advantage of the stealth platforms, and particularly the American ones with the best in class RCS and electronic warfare, is that it allows them to get close enough to have a high probability of a kill, meaning that an F35 or F22 with the highly accomplished AIM-120 is very likely to be a greater threat than a Russian or Chinese jet with their allegedly longer range missile.

[@neiltitmus9744]

That said if it's a missile if you can launch it and dissappear is that not a good thing still

[@geodkyt]

Not a problem... especially if you consider the fact that using 4th Gen fighters as "missile trucks" while 5th/6th Gen fighters (or even UAVs) as forward spotters.

[@411bvRGiskard]

Mako missile says “Hold My Fking Beer”

[@petersouthernboy6327]

AIM 260 and Mako, OP. Get informed

[@shaider1982]

on Linear Regression: the "linear" here is on the relation ship of rhe error to the true value. you can fit a quadratic or even cubic function through linear regression (I assume least squares. the key is to avoid overfitting (i.e. R square more than 1) where the function might oscilate at the ends (Runge condition).

[@jaredyoung5353]

Can this fit in the B2 or B21? Making those stealth missile trucks

[@christopherchartier3017]

Well it certainly can fit inside the bay, just gotta see if the hard point can support it

[@dexlab7539]

B2 yes, B21 maybe

Probably not such a good idea for this role. The problem with nuclear-capable stealth bombers is they are assumed to be commencing a first-strike should they head towards China or Russia. So the B-1B exists mostly to avoid sending the wrong signals.

[@nerdwwii8081]

Have you been living under a rock? 00:56 Under charger, most of the time! Made my day. Thank you!

[@paulwollenzein-zn1lh]

I am not going to check the, all of the, different comments to see if anyone else says this: That yellow/orange missile during the beginning of the video? During testing weapons are usually painted colors that makes them a lot easier to film. Including the red paint on the weapons "rail". If it is easy to see during the playback of the launch, then the less likely you are going to have to repeat the test. And that should, hopefully, save money... (?)

[@nicholasmaude6906]

5:18 - The US DoD/NATO designation is the AA-13 Axehead and its' predecessor is the AA-9 Amos.

[@shorthand1121]

This is likely an overestimate b/c: 1: The Rocket Equation is not linear 2: He is extrapolating outside of the range of his linear model My guess is that the max range is closer to 550 km, so still definitely a game changer that is hard to counter without resorting to a ramjet. OTOH, I think there is something to be said for keeping any operational AIM-260s under the cover of internal weapon bays until they're actually needed.

[@92HazelMocha]

Other things to take into account; the SM6's warhead is several times heavier than conventional A2A weapons meaning a lot of that weight is not fuel and the casing is also much thicker because it's designed to launch from VLS, which decreases not only fuel weight, but also means the missile is going to bleed energy much more quickly against a maneuvering target than conventional A2A weapons. I'd say it's probably 500km against a cooperative target but probably only 250km against a maneuvering one. Also there are no operational Aim260's, that's why this exists. Aim260 was never going to work because the Aim120D was already at peak efficiency for it's form factor. The only way to get the ranges they wanted was to make a larger missile which they had to avoid to fit into the F22 and F35.

[@yukionna1649]

@@92HazelMochathe SM6's warhead is 6% heavier than the warhead fitted to the R-37M. 64kg vs 60kg. They're basically identical. What is important though is the percentage of the weight of the missile that is warhead- 100% warhead weight and you've just got a general propose bomb, 0% warhead and you've got a booster or anti satellite weapon. The R-37M is around 12% warhead weight, while the AIM-174B is about 7.4% warhead weight. So relative to the other long range missiles it's actually much lighter

[@wagnerrp]

@@yukionna1649 Even subsonic gravity bombs are generally less than 50% explosive by mass. Structures are heavy.

[@yukionna1649]

@@wagnerrp warhead weight is the all up section, not just explosive fill weight

[@nikolaideianov5092]

​@@92HazelMochai would have to disagree there are many ways to make it fly farter away while keeping the size the same Main ones are: -2 stages -ramjet A not so big diffrences could be things like more propelant due to thinner caseing (better materiels for caseing),smaller seaker size , smaller computer components

[@Brocuzgodlocdunfamdogson]

My biggest concern is the wear and tear on the wings holding these behemoths.

[@jarhead1145]

Not an issue since it weighs less than the 2000lb jdams that they regularly use.

[@Brocuzgodlocdunfamdogson]

@@jarhead1145 the weight distribution is completely different though.

[@Registered_Simp]

Jets carry external fuel tanks which, when loaded, are just as if not heavier than these missiles. F-15's 610 gallon wing tanks could be as much as ~4000 pounds by themselves. The wings will likely be fine.

[@matiasmosquera6357]

​@@Registered_Simpthe problem with things hanging from the wings is when landing, not when flying. when tht aircraft is flying the fuselage is hanging from the wings, so the weight of the wings (plus everything attached to them) is not transfered to the fuselage. When the aircraft is in the ground all the weight is going to the wheels through the fuselage. During the landing, when the wheels strike the ground (or deck) is the peak stress at the base of the wings. This is why planes can take off and fly heavier than they can land, so it is okay to take off and fly with 4000 pounds of fuel hanging from the wings, but you have to use it or dump it prior to land. You can't be sure you are going to use the missile and you can't just dump it

[@tiagostein4057]

THere is a very important factor that is the speed the platforms can beflaying with these missiles. So a MIg31 will have much easier time deploying his long range payload than an F18

[@GG-yr5ix]

The warhead on SM-6/AIM-174B is more than large enough to change any flying target to paste. It's also hooked into data-links and Aegis system. That means F35, Hawkeye, P8 or other naval aircraft(Global Hawk??) can supply targeting data.

[@ulrichkristensen4087]

It is a step forward ,but more is coming, but bear in mind, range depends on air density

[@shaider1982]

If only the F14 was still around. Multiple AIM174's can then be carried by one.

[@Raptor-yl6kh]

good to see the younger brother of tomcat is getting the iranian treatment.(F14 with hawk)

[@GM-fh5jp]

A standard airborne AESA radar is not going to pick up an incoming fighter and be able to get a weapons lock much further out than 100kms. So, unless you have another way of supplying data to the launch aircraft via AWACs etc then you won't know where to shoot. These 300km-4oo km ranges being bandied about are day dreams. That's greater than most high altitude radars can even detect a target let alone establish a track for a missile to be launched at it.

[@JimHoward]

In ancient times I was an F-4G EWO. The F-4G and F-105G could both carry the AGM-78 Standard Arm antiradiation , which was a Standard missile with a radar homing warhead. I never flew with it myself, but it reminded me of Space Shuttle solid rocket strap on boosters , it was so huge. The only combat employment I heard about was that one was fired at a Bar Lock in downtown Hanoi. It hit the target, but the White House was pissed because downtown Hanoi was off limits. Because we didn’t want to make Uncle Ho mad. It was an insane war.

[@knarFkcalB]

One major reason fat missiles go further is that as a missile format gets larger the surface area (drag) increases by the square while the interior volume of propellant increases by the cube.

[@frankthecarpenter2584]

Your analysis is absolutely spot on. Do not ask me why I say this. A little bit of calculus and computer programming goes a long way. Way good for you my extremely intelligent friend!!!!!!!!

[@VK184]

Thanks!

[@Millennium7HistoryTech]

Thank you!

[@MultiMojo]

This looks like a AWACS/ELINT killer. Its main purpose might be to shoot down tankers / ELINT aircraft which usually are farther away than combat aircraft.

[@teddy.d174]

When the AIM-120 won’t do, consider the AIM-174B for when you want to reach far out and touch someone.

[@92HazelMocha]

Also worth noting that in your calculations you didnt account for warhead mass, which while relatively similar for most missles, the SM6's is about 100lbs heavier. This means approximately 100lbs of that weight would be taken away from fuel. Missile casing weight would also come into play as the SM6 needs to have a thicker skin because its designed to be VLS launched vs other air to air missiles, but theres no way to gauge how much of that weight is the missle's casing.

[@kathrynck]

Yeah. Personally I had thought a "ballpark" figure for it being at around 450-500km if fired forward-level, and maybe upper 500's if fired at about 45 degrees climb, from high altitude, while supersonic. Which is based on zero math, just a gut-impression. In ideal launch conditions it probably out-ranges the surface launched version. I'd be curious if it gets into "ballistic math" though. exo-atmospheric travel... can really inflate range numbers.

[@yukionna1649]

The R-37M warhead weighs effectively exactly the same, taking up far higher a percentage of the total weight of the missile than is the case in the AIM-174B. It's an important aspect to take into account, but only in as part as a percentage of the starting weight, which could potentially imply that the number is even understated

[@ASpyNamedJames]

I was thinking about the casing too. It seems to be that the missile must be modified to have less shielding and thus affect it's performance characteristics (Newton's third law). If not, then it would hamper performance. In any case it seems like utility at range will be affected against a nimble target.

[@yukionna1649]

@@ASpyNamedJames the only real modification seems to be the jacket used to attach the 30" lugs to the weapon, other than that it is a standard weapon. It wouldn't need any real reinforcement given the stresses it's designed to handle already. In terms of effectiveness at range it will of course have less energy available the further out it flies, but keep in mind that one of its primary roles is ballistic missile defence, so high speed manouvreing targets is precisely what it is optimised to engage

[@svinche2]

- AIM-174 weight is 1500kg, warhead weight is 64kg, Max speed 3.5 MACH - R-37M weight is 510kg, warhead weight is 60kg, Max speed 6 MACH

[@agricolaurbanus6209]

After watching your videos, I always feel like founding a micro-nation somewhere and building a state-of-the-art Air Force and Air Defense for it. If only I had a couple of billions.🥴

[@teddy.d174]

I think you may be on to something. You could privatize some islands in the Pacific, then bid for government contracts…🙃

[@durandil]

Most of the sources claim the R-37 has less than a 50% PK

[@jul1anuhd]

Couldn't a B-21 carry about 8 of them? The B-21 could fly close to enemy areas or even into them and shoot down important and expensive targets far behind the front line. Sounds like a big gamechanger to me, being able to fly a B-21 into enemy airspace and shoot down large air targets almost 600km away, or even ground targets and ships. For F-35 and F-22, in my opinion, it will be more exciting to be able to equip a larger quantity of smaller new missiles with a range of an AIM-120D. So 6, 8 or even more small air-to-air missiles that can still hit targets ~200km away.

[@phelansa23]

Great video, Thank you.

[@dkoz8321]

I am fairley certain, about 70%, that AIM-174B is an interim Joint long range munition. A back up to AIM-260. AIM-174B , based on SM3/6 appears tob e too large for F-22 and too large for F-35A/C internal carry. So it may be a weapon for F-15C/E/EX, F/A-18E/F. Leaving F-22 and F-35 using AIM-120D variants while AIM-260 is made operational.

[@teddy.d174]

You’re absolutely correct. It’s more of a “stop gap” so to speak, until the next generation of long range missiles become operational.

[@user-qz2sw7pq8y]

i honestly think though that the R37 and the chinese ones are the superiour missiles. The R37 basicly became commonly carried not only by the Mig 31 ( wich probably has the best kinematic konditions for launch ) but also by SU35 , SU30SM and has been seen carried internally by SU57 if i am right. it is lighter , restricts the performance of the plane less and can be carried in higher quanititys. in my opinion this is a measure to at least have something at hand before being caught without anything.

[@concilium1]

The Aim-174B can shoot down ballistic and hypersonic missiles as well.

[@SimonZerafa]

600+Km seems a bit of overestimate? Maybe there is some other factors at play here?

[@killman369547]

Weapons on their own aren't game changers, i figured Ukraine would've taught us all that lesson by now. LOGISTICS AND PRODUCTION are the game changers. So how many of these can America push out per month? 5? 10? 15?

[@Myanmartiger921]

America is king of air and everything airforce including missiles and bombs production is very very high.

[@pogo1140]

The Navy wants with 128/yr LRIP ramping up to a 300/yr full production rate in 2-3 years after with a potential increase to 600-900/yr. No word if the USAF is going to be buying it

[@tjallingdalheuvel126]

And at what prize? NATO budget is very impressive, but it fills so many insatible pockets. A non corrupt coutry can produce the same for a fraction.

[@Myanmartiger921]

@@tjallingdalheuvel126 agreed power of bat meat soup regularly produces corona family biological weapons for free.

[@m.a3914]

Probably hundreds if needed. Per month ofc. There is nothing spectacular about these missiles. The US has the entire production on their shore too. They just need the people and the machinery. So hundreds if not over a thousand per month. It depends at what stage of a conflict we are talking.

[@runem5429]

Super long range missiles need to have an air-to-air variant, if possible, because they are AWACS killers, VIP transport killers, tanker killers even in the most high intensity part of a war. And lessons from Ukraine would suggest you can also use them as ambush weapons against fighers if they are complacent and think they are far from the front..Add to that that giving non-stealth planes a weapon that can reach over the head of the stealth planes in front to put any threats to the stealth guys on the defensive even before they see your stealth planes would be a great thing to have..Overall this missile seems to have awesome potential. I dont' see why it can't fly on F16, though...isn't it very similar to bringing two 2000lb bombs?

[@carlchong7592]

The max range specification for a cooperative unstealthy target is a very simplistic specification that does not describe combat effectiveness very completely. Max range is very dependent on flight altitude and speed. If your cooperative target also remains at a high altitude where the air is thin, your missile's effective range will be much further. If an uncooperative target is defending, going away and sharply descending, your missile's effective range will be far shorter. Interestingly the resistance of air at the speeds involved is so high that the amount of potential energy of height doesn't matter very much. It's all about air resistance which is very dependent on altitude because denser air is so much thicker to punch through. To put things in perspective, at 30kft (a typical cruising altitude for a passenger air liner), the density of air is about 1/3 of the density of air at sea level. The medium that you are making your missile push through varies a lot in the context of air combat. If you are willing to accept a longer time to target, you can drive your missile at a lower speed which will incur much lower aerodynamic drag. Also not addressed is are the capabilities of seekers. Making a rocket motor which can provide a long burn time, and/or provide a late burn phase, is fairly straight foward. The propulsion end of things is pretty well understood. The thing we cannot assess, at all, from press releases is the performance of seeker heads, especially against stealthy aircraft. A weapon that can reach very far also needs really good eyesight. If your weapon's ability to seek isn't long compared to it's propulsion range, you have to provide guidance for it for a long range. You don't get to break lock and defend against incoming missiles if you have to provide guidance while the missile gets close enough to detect your target with it's internal radar that has to fit into a small diameter without access to electrical power generated from air breathing engines. Finally, if you're carrying a bunch of big heavy missiles, expect your wings to fall off if you maneuver sharply. The G loads on an air frame go crazy with very big missiles. Should a stealthy aircraft get in closer by flying among ground clutter, expect to be jettisoning your big heavy expensive missiles instead of shooting them so you can quickly defend. Considering a missile entirely on the announced specification of it's max potential range is about as meaningful as considering a tank entirely on it's gun and armor specs.

[@user-uh6yt8zp9d]

The aim-164b kinda looks like a slimmer aim-54 phoenix

[@nudgeunit]

Best video I've seen on the missile so far.

[@LoanwordEggcorn]

Launching an SM-6 from a plane is brilliant. No pun intended, since SM-6 is ALMOST a "Brilliant Pebble" in the ballistic missile defense context.

[@ZhuoAo]

Excellent work, as always.

[@usiak13]

This concept reminds me of Iranian air force launching Hawk SAM missile from F-14. I guess targeting and guidence will be provided by AWACS via datalink.

[@RichelieuUnlimited]

I have my doubts about ranges increasing linearly depending on any factor, because this would in theory allow for getting into orbit, if the missile is just large enough. Also larger missiles should be worse at energy retention, so their effective range should be lower compared to their theoretical maximum range in relative comparison to smaller missiles. I’d i.e. choose the Meteor over the R-37M in terms of effective range. But the overall size still hints at the AIM-174 being quite long-ranged.

[@derrychen6923]

Mind blowing !!!! Thank you so much for the info !!

[@Jack2Japan]

All the elements of a creat video: Otis, the Elephant and Excel charts with regression. It’s plane Nerd heaven!

[@JP-JustSayin]

Aaaaaand ... now missile developers can scare the shit out of intelligence services by deliberately mis-marking the weight on dummy missiles. Nice. 🙃

[@RodrigoO72083]

Fantastic analysis, thank you.

[@geodkyt]

The range issue with the AIM-260 is certainly a possibility. However, the more likely reason for the Navy pushing ahead with this is (regardless of any range or performance issues AIM-260 may have been showing in development) this gives them super long range BVR and atrike capability *right now* , not at soke date in the future when AIM-260 maybe available (in production, achieved IOC, fully integrated to Navy airframes, etc.) And it is a direct counter to Chinese A2AD plans, because it can disrupt the kill chains at multiple points. It also counters Chinese naval power projection plans, because it can effectively limit their aircraft to unrefuelled combat ranges from Chinese bases.

[@LuqmanHM]

it's just an SM2 block3C (active seeker version)

[@maksimsmelchak7433]

Thanks, Gus. Interesting video.

[@justinmartin4231]

But they're datalinked so they could be launched from b-2 or b-21 well within the higher probability of kill range.

[@silentone11111111]

Great vid. Very interesting detective work ❤

[@tommarquez1980]

Superb. I like the way you analyze those questions, it gives us new insights on how to approach a problem.

[@oculosprudentium8486]

the KEY conclusion about the range 19:32 600 KM!! Now if they can put them in the Drop Cages so that they fall out of the back of even the huge C-5 Galaxy aircraft then hypothetically just 1 of those cargo airplanes and launch 80 of them (10 cages, each with 8 rockets) from 250 miles away 4 of those airplanes deploying 320 of those missiles and the Chinese radar operators will spontaneously crap their pants!

[@hippopotamus6765]

Rice power!

[@bobh9492]

I’m not convinced the Chinese could see a fourth Gen fighter far enough for their supposed range to even matter before the new American missile came to be.

[@DerDude1977]

Your apperance somehow remind me of John Goodman, which I mean in a good way as I like John Goodman.

[@Terracotta-warriors_Sea]

Once again a very informative video!

[@HD46409]

Because the missile can be externally guided, it can be deployed from non fighters aircraft including the b2 and the b21.

[@shaider1982]

18:00 this might be an instance the square cube law is in the designer's favor: for a missile, weight can increase faster than cross section which influences the drag.

[@JinKee]

17:11 maybe correlate the mass of the weapon minus the mass of the warhead and then correlate to max range?

[@lovemym16]

First thing is the US always advertised the lower end of the spectrum as maximum capability. Like with the F14. It was limited to 6.5Gs in fleet and training operations but capable of pulling 9g. Much like the current hornets. Being limited to 7.5g.

[@zchen27]

It's not much as advertised as you really don't want to be constantly pushing maximum structural limits on your planes in peace time. That's how you get an airframe to retire early.

[@lovemym16]

@@zchen27 The reason the Navy puts these limits on its jets is the street of carrier landings.

[@BasedF-15Pilot]

@21:24 Consider the following... The Navy doesn't have jets with the radar size/wattage nor do their jets have the electrical generation ability currently to utilize the AIM 260 to the missile's fullest extent. Therefore Lockheed is testing more with the USAF F-22/F-15 which are the jets that do have radars/wattage/generators to match the 260's legs. Therefore, Aegis and other ship combat system datalink and compatibility is not high on the list for the 260 development where as for the SM-6 it's already native and Lockheed doesn't have to find a spot on the 260 circuit boards for the Navy systems. The Hornet needs to be able to datalink with a mesh of SA platforms such a F-35/Destroyers to launch the 174 at anywhere near max distance, and Hornets are slow too so initial launch kinetics will be mediocre. Navy and USAF 260 missiles will probably be two different variants.

[@dexlab7539]

“The Flag Painted On The Side” = Most Important Aerodynamic Feature 😂😂😂

[@jpteknoman]

Trivia about the missile. The 174 number is not random. The number came about because the basic idea behind it was to make big AIM-120 with a very long range, and the other very large air to air missile with a very long range was the AIM-54... 120+54=174.

[@sergarlantyrell7847]

My undergrad thesis was on regression analysis using statistical data like that (only for airframe mass estimation). Maybe I should go and dig it out and see if I can apply that to missile data to get a more accurate range formula.

[@williamdouglas8040]

The SM-6 warhead is much larger then a standard AIM warhead. So weight will not be the best metric for determining range. But subtracting the additional weight due to the larger warhead and you might come up with an interesting result. FYI, it is 64KG vs 20KG for the AIM-120. The difference in warhead could also explain why development was warranted despite the AIM-260 also existing (presumably). The AIM-260 will be usable by more aircraft but limited in what it can target. The AIM-174 is limited with respect to launch aircraft but can also be effective in striking surface craft. The venn diagram for these too missiles will have circles that only partially overlap.

[@k53847]

The PLA apparently using CL-20 as the basis for propulsion fuel and the warhead. Which is about 20% better than the propulsion and explosives the US uses. CL-20 is China Lake Compound #20, which the US government developed in1987 and never productionized. The PLA did.

[@92HazelMocha]

Do you have a source for this?

[@k53847]

@@92HazelMocha scmp 'China has tamed the world’s most powerful explosive, military scientists say' and the June 2021 report from etcmd "Energetics and Lethality: The Imperative to Reshape the U.S. Military Kill Chain." 'Meanwhile, Chinese military devised processes to manufacture CL-20 on an industrial scale and built it into weapons systems. The discrepancy in performance is enormous: compared to U.S. HMX-based explosives, CL-20 has a 40% increase in penetration depth, which is a significant increase in overall warhead lethality for specific applications.'

[@92HazelMocha]

​@@k53847Thank you

[@YouTubeOdyssey]

I believe the U.S. has only one rocket-fuel production facility left.

[@BaloneySandwichWithKetchup]

just imagine these on a b21 missile truck. could take out an entire air force.

[@phelansa23]

Great video, Thank you.

[@dustinfrey3067]

I wouldn't say the only reason the AIM-174B is being adapted is due to the failure of the AIM-260. The AIM-260 was never designed to have a maximum range of the 174b. I think it was designed to be a 250-300km air to air missile. 50%-100% more range than the 120D. The 174B is the extremely long-range AWACS killer. The 174B doesn't take the place of the 260, it is designed for a different purpose. Not to mention, the 260 is designed for 5th gen aircraft. The 174B cannot be used inside the weapons bays of F-22 or F-35. They are not competitors they are complimentary of each other. It allows for F-35 to guide long-range shots of 4th gen aircraft far outside the range those 4th gen's can be shot. Increasing the firepower of the US aircraft as a whole. It ensures 4th gen aircraft aren't completely obsolete. So, I have to disagree with the fundamental assumption of your thesis.

[@svinche2]

- AIM-174 weight is supposed to be 857kg (1500kg is known to be for RIM-174 with booster), warhead weight is 64kg, Max speed 3.5 MACH - R-37M weight is 510kg, warhead weight is 60kg, Max speed 6 MACH

[@thamiordragonheart8682]

I think Mach 3.5 is the max speed for the surface-launched RIM-174, so the air-launched AIM-174 should be faster. Mach 4.5 wouldn't be surprising. the relatively low max speed compared to other missiles its size is because the motor burns slower, so it has disproportionately more range. on the other hand, using that range, let alone with a slower missile, requires much longer detection and tracking ranges, meaning third-party targeting with AEW or forward stealth aircraft (or maybe a new F-15). Russia doesn't really have either reliably so they need the faster missile.

[@svinche2]

@@thamiordragonheart8682 the trick is that long range missiles very soon achieve high altitudes, climbing fast toward where air is thin and where is less drag (in their first 30-50 km/ miles) and from high altitude they achieve terminal velocity later and max speed much later, somewhere in 2/3 of their max range! So i have big doubt that AIM-174 will be faster? 3.5 MACH is Max speed for RIM-174 version with Booster ! Also raising the speed by any modification on propulsion will raise the thermal expansion and heating up of structure dramatically, better to say question is did they build and design the body of missile for any higher speed? For comparison, if we took S-400 missile, that can achieve max speed of 14 MACH at high altitudes and have comparable mass ,Range and dimensions to RIM-174 that again have 3.5 MACH. Even with hypersonic S-400 increasing the speed even for a 1 MACH will attribute to much higher thermal loads, something that must be addressed in early stage of designing of missile, that later can be improved by more powerful propulsion without much changing in body parts or production of the model.

Are you sure it's not 16 MACH?

[@nudgeunit]

@@thamiordragonheart8682 I was checking out the Iranian's converted HAWK missiles that they jury-rigged to supplement their low AIM 54 phoenix stocks, and I believe that the ground-launched version is rated at 2.4 mach, while the info for their air-launched one claims 4-5 mach. Is that kind of speed increase typical of something launched up in thinner air? I'm guessing the iranians didn't change the rocket motors when they converted the hawks to fit on their Tomcats

[@thamiordragonheart8682]

@@nudgeunit for direct cross platform yes. Part of it is not having to accelerate through thick air, but a big part is also just that you don’t have to expend energy getting to altitude and start about 1 Mach faster than you do on the ground.

[@vijayAPace]

Glad that you are back :)

[@billwill7383]

Never underestimate the value of stickers Sir. 😁

[@ronaryel6445]

The Iranians successfully adapted the US Army's MIM-23 Hawk SAM for launch from the F-14A Tomcat in the 1980s and shot down at least two Iraqi aircraft with it. The supply of AIM-54A Phoenix missiles was limited so the MIM-23 filed the gap. The Hawk used semi-active homing, so it likely was fairly simple to tune it to receive and interpret the reflected energy of the AWG-9 radar.

[@NathanDean79]

The Max Range of the SM-6 missile is 240 miles. The max range of the air launched version the AIM-174 is 230 miles if launched below 20,000 Feet and 250-260 miles if Launched at high altitude 35,000-55,000 feet. Most US fighter jets ceiling is 60,000.

[@wewillrockyou1986]

I would expect that the 174B proved to be a very low cost programme because of the minimal changes made relative to the SM-6 which is already in production, it certainly would be a lot less than the JATM programme. It may even be feasible to reduce the costs of both the SM6 and 174B if the production volumes are ramped up, so the cost issue might not be as extreme as it seems at first glance.

[@bat2293]

Excellent analysis.