F/A-18F from VX-9 performed a demonstration flight with a full air-to-air combat load.

22 014 66
F/A-18F from VX-9 performed a demonstration flight with a full air-to-air combat load.

The US Navy continues to test its new missiles AIM-174B, based on the SM-6 naval air defense missile, on board a Super Hornet fighter. The VX-9 aircraft carries four AIM-174, three AIM-120 and two AIM-9X missiles.

A U.S. Navy F/A-18F Super Hornet from VX-9 "Vampires" was observed carrying a heavy air-to-air weapons loadout, including four AIM-174B, three AIM-120 and two AIM-9X missiles, as well as a targeting pod and an infrared search and track system mounted on an external ventral pylon.



The aircraft is the Vampires' flagship (squadron commander's aircraft), call sign "Vandy 1", which sports a black livery, specially painted for the unit's 30th anniversary to pay tribute to another squadron commander of the same call sign, the same livery worn by the F-4s and F-14s of VX-4's squadron commander, also known as "Vandy 1". The call sign comes from an abbreviation of the unit's official call sign, "Vanderbilt", used at the time.


F/A-18F "Vandy 1" of VX-9, loaded with four CATM-174B missiles, three CATM-120 missiles and two CATM-9X missiles.

As The Aviationist has reported in detail over the past few months, the AIM-174B is a variant of the Standard Missile (SM-6) designed for air-to-air missions. The SM-6 is a surface-to-air missile designed for use on Navy ships in conjunction with the Aegis combat system, and is also known as the RIM-174 Standard Extended Range Active Missile (ERAM), John Ridge September 11, 2024.

The idea of ​​adapting the SM-6 for air-launch is not new, as the missile was previously spotted on the underwing pylons of VX-31 "Dust Devils" Super Hornets in 2018 and 2021. However, it was only earlier this year that testing gained momentum and operational units were brought into the fold.

In fact, after one F/A-18 was spotted in April with an SM-6 without a booster on its underwing pylon, it weapon then appeared on combat aircraft assigned to the aircraft carrier USS Carl Vinson during exercise Rim of The Pacific 2024 (RIMPAC 2024) in July. The heaviest payload observed included two AIM-174 and two AIM-120 missiles.

The F/A-18F in the photo is reportedly loaded to the brim, and the load is the heaviest air-to-air payload to date with the new weapons, with AIM-174s on both the inboard and mid-wing hardpoints.

It is also interesting to note the presence of an ASG-34A IRST optical-electronic reconnaissance pod for air, surface and ground targets on the external ventral pylon, which acts as an additional sensor to the AN/APG-79 fire control radar in conditions of intense electronic attack or in an environment where there is no radar recognition. The total load in this configuration, excluding the PB, is more than 4 kg.

Another shot of the F/A-18F "Vandy 1" with heavy air-to-air weapons.

AIM-174B


The AIM-174 is an air-launched version of the legacy SM-2 naval SAM, the RIM-174 Extended Range Air Defense Missile (ERAM), a key element of the U.S. Navy's air defense strategy. Integrated into the Aegis combat system, the RIM-174 is primarily designed for long-range interception of airborne aerodynamic and limited ballistic targets, and can also be used for terminal missile defense and as an anti-ship missile.

In 2024, the SM-6's first official combat use occurred when the U.S. Department of Defense confirmed that the destroyer USS Carney intercepted and destroyed an anti-ship ballistic missile fired by Houthi rebels in the Gulf of Aden on January 30, 2024.

The SM-6 SAM uses the airframe and cruise engine of the SM-2ER Block IV (RIM-156A) missile, modernized with the installation of an active radar homing head instead of the semi-active one in the previous version, created on the basis of the homing head of the AIM-120 AMRAAM air-to-air missile, as well as with the replacement of the conceptually outdated radio command correction system at the initial and middle sections of the flight path with the Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC) network correction system.

This missile can reach speeds of up to Mach 3,5 (1 m/s) at an altitude of 180 meters at the end of the active section of the trajectory (at the 100th second of flight, after which the speed only decreases) and has a maximum aerodynamic range of up to 30 nautical miles (200 km).

It is therefore unclear what the maximum range of the air-launched version might be: despite the lack of a booster, a high-speed, high-altitude launch would result in a significantly greater range than the ground- or ship-launched version.

With the introduction of the AIM-174B, the US Navy joins the top three aviation powers capable of creating and deploying ultra-long-range air-to-air missiles with the ability to hit air and other targets (initially, the ability to hit ground and surface optical and radio contrast targets) beyond line of sight (BVRAAM), such as the French MBDA Meteor, the Russian R-37M and the Chinese PL-15 and PL-21.

In effect, the AIM-174B allows U.S. Super Hornets to engage targets at much greater ranges than is currently possible with the AIM-120 AMRAAM. Integrated with the E-2D, F-35, and AEGIS as part of the Navy’s Integrated Fire Control and Air Countermeasures (NIFC-CA) system, the AIM-174B will enhance the Navy’s ability to intercept airborne targets at ranges comparable to (if not exceeding) those achieved against naval targets using the baseline SM-6 SAM.

Essentially, this new missile fills the gap left by the retirement of the AIM-54 Phoenix. The AIM-54 was a long-range air-to-air missile used by the U.S. Navy's F-14 Tomcat fighters that was retired in 2004 along with its F-14 carrier. Known for its impressive range of over 100 nautical miles and the ability to engage multiple targets (up to six), the AIM-54 left a significant gap in the U.S. Air Force's long-range air-to-air capability.

While there has been no direct replacement for the AIM-54 Phoenix in terms of range, the US military has been developing advanced air-to-air missiles to enhance the capabilities of its fighters. The AIM-260 Joint Advanced Tactical Missile (JATM) is one such development, intended to replace the AIM-120 AMRAAM. While the AIM-260 is not a direct replacement for the AIM-54 Phoenix, the development is aimed at increasing the range and effectiveness over the AIM-120.


F/A-18E of VFA-192 with two SM-6 air-launched missiles

Promptly deployed


The photo of the new weapon during a test flight in April 2024 was reportedly part of testing ahead of the AIM-174B's delivery to a squadron that will likely conduct operational test and evaluation (OT&E) - a phase of testing conducted on production or representative weapons to determine if the systems are operationally effective and suitable to support a full-rate production decision (FRP).

In July, the U.S. Navy acknowledged that the AIM-174 was operationally deployed, likely at initial operational capability (IOC) with the Super Hornet squadrons of CVW-2 aboard the USS Carl Vinson (CVN-70), according to Naval News. “The SM-6 Air Launch Configuration (ALC) was developed as part of the SM-6 missile family and is operationally deployed in the Navy today,” a Navy spokesman said.

While a Navy spokesman has acknowledged the existence and deployment of the new weapon, so far only the inert NAIM-174B, CATM-174B trainer, and DATM-174B land-based training variants have been observed mounted on aircraft. However, the fact that the Navy has mentioned the weapon being operationally deployed implies that armed versions of the missiles may also be delivered.

The Navy has not released other details about the AIM-174.

So far, it is known that the prototype SM-6 missile without the booster weighs 1 pounds ± 890 pounds (14 kg ± 857 kg), and this is probably the launch weight of the AIM-6B, the missile has a length of about 174 feet (21 meters) and a controlled flight range of 6,4 to 370 km.
66 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. -16
    14 September 2024 04: 12
    It is very strange why these missiles are placed on some unimportant F-18. And why aren’t these missiles placed on the current main US aircraft – the yellow and blue MiG-29 or, at worst, the F-16?
    1. +2
      14 September 2024 06: 48
      Quote: Yuri L
      Why aren’t these missiles placed on the current main US aircraft – the yellow and blue MiG-29 or, at worst, the F-16?

      Why not on Ukrainian F-16s? According to statistics, the turrets of Ukrainian tanks spent more time in the air than the F-16s transferred to Ukraine.
  2. -1
    14 September 2024 06: 04
    The F 18 remains in service with some of the minke whales' allies, and offering partners suitable weapons is a relevant and profitable business. The minke whales themselves will continue to work in this direction. This is normal and fits in well with their concept of building an effective air defense. soldier
    1. +5
      14 September 2024 07: 09
      It is reasonable to assume that the AIM-174 air-to-air missile can be suspended under both the F-15 and F-16, since their guidance system is identical to the AIM-120C7. And there should be no problems with the suspension options, because all US fighters carry the AGM-158 JASSM cruise missile, which weighs 1200 kg. Therefore, suspending the 174 kg AIM-860 on the same pylon will not be a problem.
      1. +4
        14 September 2024 07: 39
        They probably started with the naval F-18, since the SM-6 is a naval missile.
        1. +3
          14 September 2024 07: 41
          They probably need it more for the defense of the AUG - the performance characteristics of the attack weapons are growing, and accordingly it is necessary to increase the performance characteristics of the defense weapons. This is especially important at sea - "you can't crawl away behind the neighboring hill"... sad
      2. +2
        14 September 2024 11: 33
        Of course, yes, in the strike version - it is probably justified. But I wonder - what are the flight characteristics of the F-18 with such a load? Maximum on the external pylons?
        1. +2
          14 September 2024 11: 36
          So you've probably seen this picture, it's basically the same thing:
          1. +2
            14 September 2024 12: 30
            Quote: Strelkin
            So you've probably seen a picture like this,
            This is an F/A-18 "Hornet", and the new missiles were hung on the F/A-18 "Super Hornet" - this is a slightly different aircraft.
            1. +2
              14 September 2024 12: 36
              This is an F/A-18C/D "Hornet", and the new missiles were hung on an F/A-18E/F "Super Hornet" - which is a slightly different aircraft.

              The first one could take 12 URVV, and the second one can take 14!
    2. 0
      15 September 2024 11: 59
      Quote: rocket757
      The F 18 remains in service with some of the minke whales' allies and offers

      Did I miss something?? what
      1. 0
        15 September 2024 15: 20
        What is the essence of the question?
        This is not a comment, but a question...
  3. +1
    14 September 2024 06: 45
    Change the author's caption under the photo.
  4. +5
    14 September 2024 06: 46
    No matter how much I looked at the black F-18 in the article, I saw 4 missiles, not 2, based on the SM 6. Editor, please correct the error.
    1. +3
      14 September 2024 07: 40
      The captions under the photos are mixed up
    2. 0
      14 September 2024 17: 43
      Quote from Nesvoy
      No matter how much I looked at the black F-18 in the article, I saw 4 missiles, not 2, based on the SM 6.

      https://www.twz.com/air/f-a-18-super-hornet-appears-with-unprecedented-heavy-air-to-air-missile-load
  5. The comment was deleted.
  6. +2
    14 September 2024 08: 57
    The Americans have significantly increased the combat capabilities of aviation in air combat in a short period of time. It should not be forgotten that the SM-6 is also used by the fleet as an anti-ship missile. So it is quite possible that they have acquired not only long-range V-V missiles, but also supersonic air-launched anti-ship missiles, which will also expand their capabilities at sea.
  7. +2
    14 September 2024 09: 00
    It is also interesting to note the presence of an ASG-34A IRST optical-electronic reconnaissance container for air, surface and ground targets on the external under-fuselage pylon.

    The external under-fuselage pylon carries an FPU-12/A fuel tank, the nose of which has been reconstructed to accommodate the ASG-34A(V)1 Block II module (in the photo). Such tanks have a smaller capacity (1337 liters versus 1817 for a standard tank).
  8. +3
    14 September 2024 09: 51
    And why this article if there was the same one yesterday?
    https://topwar.ru/250011-silno-zarjazhennyj-fa-18-super-hornet-zamechen-amerikanskij-istrebitel-s-boevoj-nagruzkoj-dlja-borby-za-vozdushnoe-prevoshodstvo.html
  9. -1
    14 September 2024 09: 57
    Will the catapult be able to accelerate it with such a suspension? The photo is beautiful, but it has nothing to do with life. Again, we return to the fact that the Boeing, for its own stingy reasons, "ate" the F-14 (well done), and now the mattress fleet has a serious problem of intercepting it at maximum distance. And the problem is not only in the insufficient range of the missile, but also in the speed of its carrier.
    1. +8
      14 September 2024 14: 24
      The photo is beautiful, but it has nothing to do with life.

      The style of modern military science is to make sweeping statements without any knowledge of the issue.
      The maximum weight of the F/A-18 Super Hornet on eleven external suspension points is 8000 kg. It took off from the aircraft carrier USS George HW Bush with a load of 7600 kg. Can you refute this?
      1. -7
        14 September 2024 15: 15
        Did you personally weigh the Hornet or is that based on Bloomberg's words? I can say that a Su-33 took off from Kuznetsov with a 20-ton load, but who will believe me?
        1. +5
          14 September 2024 18: 16
          Have you personally weighed the Hornet?

          The photos show the F/A-18F Super Hornet taking off from the USS George HW Bush. Will you calculate the payload yourself or can I help you?
          1. -6
            14 September 2024 23: 20
            And what does this photo show? Is there a Hornet on the deck? Did it fly somewhere or was it parked and then lowered into the hangar? Where can you see that? Maybe its PTB is completely empty, just for show? Mattress makers are real storytellers. When the North Carolina battleships were put into service, they wrote that the main armor belt was 370 mm, but it was 305 mm.)))
            1. +3
              14 September 2024 23: 58
              And what does this photograph show?

              Brilliant! You know, I expected exactly that answer from you. Mark Twain was truly a great man.
              It's not about the road we choose, it's what's inside of us that makes us choose the road.
              1. -1
                15 September 2024 09: 44
                And what does the quote you provided from Mark Twain assert or refute?)) I'll explain it in simple terms, I worked for 17 years in operational work, in the Ministry of Internal Affairs and I'm used to trusting only what I saw with my own eyes or the expert's opinion (although the expert is a living person, he can also be pressured). Everything else, words, are of varying degrees of reliability - or rather, unreliability. In what real battles with serious opponents did the F-22 (F-35) participate? On what basis are conclusions made that they are super-duper? On the basis of the manufacturer's statements? Well, they'll tell you even more))) at one time, Lockheed said that the F-104 was super-duper, then it turned out that this was very much not true. And this is not true, proven by air battles with the MiG-21, not to mention the fact that the airplane received a well-deserved nickname "flying coffin".
                1. +1
                  15 September 2024 10: 01
                  And what does the quote you gave from Mark Twain assert or refute?


                  worked for 17 years in operational work in the Ministry of Internal Affairs
                  1. -1
                    15 September 2024 10: 38
                    And what does this mean? I would like some more compelling arguments
                    1. +4
                      15 September 2024 13: 42
                      I would like some more compelling arguments

                      What's the point?
                      Neither at home nor at school,
                      Nowhere, nobody -
                      Did not believe
                      Stubborn Thomas
                      Nothing.

                      I cannot take you to the aircraft carrier at the moment so that you can see for yourself. Yes, I think that even in this case you would find a reason to say that you were deceived.
                      Frost.
                      Children put on skates.
                      Passers-by raised their collars.
                      Thomas says:
                      "Winter came".
                      In underpants
                      Thomas goes for a walk.
                      1. -2
                        15 September 2024 15: 00
                        That is, there is no evidence except for advertising photos))) then what are we talking about?
                      2. +2
                        15 September 2024 15: 02
                        what are we talking about?

                        Addressed to a friend
                        A song goes around
                        Because the Earth is round!

                        This song could have been
                        Sing from the end and sing from the beginning,
                      3. -2
                        15 September 2024 15: 04
                        What is your evidence?))) whiskers, paws and tail?)))
        2. +1
          14 September 2024 19: 49
          I can say that a Su-33 took off from Kuznetsov with a 20-ton load, but who will believe me?

          Everyone will believe it if you post a photo of the takeoff with the appropriate load.
          1. -5
            14 September 2024 23: 23
            And why do I need it? I already know that this didn't happen. But that doesn't mean I'll believe it.
            into any mattress nonsense. Well, they put all sorts of stuff on it, and in the internal fuel tanks - for 15 minutes. Take off, make a circle around the AVIC and land)))
        3. 0
          15 September 2024 21: 08
          But what if we look at the situation from a different angle?
          For example, take the same F-14 Tomcat mentioned above... the normal weight of which with 4 AIM-7 Arrow type missiles is 27100 kg.
          The mass of the equipped F/A-18 Super Hornet is 16790 kg, plus 7600 kg, as the comrade above claims, equals 24 kg, and if we take into account the fact that you doubt, for example, the fullness of the suspended PTB, then it turns out to be even less by one and a half tons. That is, in conclusion, what I want to say. Do you think it is impossible to launch the Super Hornet from a catapult, which even with this full kit will be slightly lighter than the Tomcat. At the same time, the Tomcat, which took off from the decks of aircraft carriers without problems with a normal takeoff weight of 390 tons?
          1. -1
            15 September 2024 21: 25
            And the thrust of two Tomcat engines, normal mode 64 kN - one engine, two respectively 128, afterburner 124 (248), don't you count? The Hornet has 47/85 respectively. Without afterburner it's 20% more, afterburner is more than 30% - this is for one engine. You can count for two yourself, if you want.
            1. 0
              15 September 2024 21: 50
              The Super Hornet has a maximum F414-GE-400 engine thrust of 65 kN, with afterburner thrust of 97 kN. The Tomcat has less thrust, 54 kN and 93 kN, respectively, per engine. So why can't the Super Hornet, with a mass of roughly 24 tons, take off from the deck?
              P.S. Although I was wrong about the Tomcat in terms of engine thrust
              1. 0
                16 September 2024 07: 54
                So you are talking about the "super hornet". And I am talking about the "hornet" that flew together with the "Tomcat". If the Tomcat had been modernized, it would have more thrust. I read an American pilot - he wrote that a normally loaded Tomcat took off from a catapult without afterburner. With the suspension in the photo, the mass of the "hornet" can reach 30 tons. Theoretically, the suspension points allow it, but I have vague doubts whether it will take off. Most likely, this is advertising, and a little to scare the Chinese.
              2. +1
                18 September 2024 19: 20
                The Super Hornet has a maximum F414-GE-400 engine thrust of 65 kN, with afterburner thrust of 97 kN. The Tomcat has less thrust, 54 kN and 93 kN, respectively, per engine. So why can't the Super Hornet, with a mass of roughly 24 tons, take off from the deck?

                And what are the problems? at any weight "take off from the deck" if the plane is accelerated to takeoff speed by a steam catapult? lol It has a takeoff weight limit. 40 tons (it was a long time ago, I didn’t specify how it is now).
                1. 0
                  19 September 2024 02: 03
                  That's what I'm getting at... I personally don't doubt the Americans' ability to lift deck-based fighters with such a combat load, because the plane is taking off on afterburner, plus there's a catapult. It's the comrade above who doubts it!)
                  1. 0
                    19 September 2024 02: 19
                    So show your comrade the full depth of his delusions! lol He will realize and rejoice! smile
                    Each aircraft on an aircraft carrier is weighed before being installed on the catapult track, this is a very quick procedure, then the catapult operator sets the required pressure in the pistons of this catapult in accordance with the specific takeoff weight.
                    1. 0
                      21 September 2024 07: 34
                      As was indicated above by the same comrade...he needs to be present directly on the deck of a Nimitz-type aircraft carrier to verify this with his own eyes)
                      So it's useless here)
                      1. 0
                        12 December 2024 13: 42
                        The comrade above studied at a Soviet school and had a 4+ in physics. And how mattress companies can pull the wool over the eyes of suckers, everyone who wants to know knows.
                      2. 0
                        14 December 2024 21: 24
                        This does not mean at all that the vile Americans lie everywhere)))
                2. 0
                  12 December 2024 13: 44
                  40 tons - it will pull, but this does not mean that these 40 tons will fly)))
        4. 0
          12 December 2024 12: 33
          With empty tanks, probably.
  10. -1
    14 September 2024 10: 09
    This missile can reach speeds of up to Mach 3,5 (1 m/s) at an altitude of 180 meters at the end of the active section of the trajectory.
    So-so characteristics...
    1. -3
      14 September 2024 10: 20
      Well, go ahead and show me a master class and dodge this missile. Is it too much? Aren't you tired of fighting with "numbers" yet?
      1. 0
        14 September 2024 10: 23
        Quote from Nesvoy
        Well, come on, show me a master class and dodge this missile.
        A fantastically stupid phrase.
        Quote from Nesvoy
        Aren't you tired of fighting with "numbers" yet?
        No. What next?
        1. 0
          14 September 2024 10: 24
          You have "brilliant."
          1. 0
            14 September 2024 10: 33
            Quote from Nesvoy
            You have "brilliant."
            I'm glad you were able to realize this!
    2. +2
      14 September 2024 20: 12
      So-so characteristics...

      On high 100 meters?! Magnificent! Incredible! But for a height of 20+ km - simply "nothing"... lol
  11. -3
    14 September 2024 12: 46
    As I understand it, without information from the outside (like the AWACS aircraft), this carrier of air defense missiles cannot see where to shoot and cannot control the missile at a long range. So, in case of a conflict, you need to shoot down the aircraft with the radar, then the missiles will not fly anywhere.
    1. +3
      14 September 2024 20: 29
      As I understand it, without information from the outside (like an AWACS aircraft), this carrier of air defense missiles cannot really see where to shoot and cannot control the missile at long range.

      Well, why not? Its AN/APG-79 radar sees a target with an RCS of 1 m² at a range of 148 km:
      https://turdef.com/article/usmc-tests-ris-s-apg-79v4-gan-aesa-radar-on-fa-18-hornet
      The instrumental range should be more than 400 km. It will see and control...
      So, in case of a conflict, you need to shoot down the plane with the radar, then the missiles won’t fly anywhere.

      It would be good, in a combat patrol there is just one Hawkeye (detection range up to 550 km) + 2 F-18E/F, but it’s not that simple.
  12. -1
    14 September 2024 12: 54
    --"Known for its impressive range of over 100 nautical miles and the ability to engage multiple targets (up to six), the AIM-54 left a significant gap in the U.S. Air Force's long-range air-to-air capability." - what How is it that one Phoenix missile shot down six planes at a distance of over 100 nautical miles, and, yo, such a miracle was written off? This is a real GAP, a betrayal under the hypnosis of aliens!
    1. +3
      14 September 2024 14: 34
      The F-14 could guide six of these missiles to six targets.
      1. 0
        14 September 2024 15: 41
        One can assume independently that the F-14 avionics provided such a guidance spectrum, but:
        1 how to drag 6 such heavy missiles on one F14 with folding wings?
        2 why was it written off, it’s cooler than the MiG 31 of that period with 4 missiles and tracking targets.
        However, the phrase in the article is puzzling.
        1. +1
          14 September 2024 16: 41
          The F-14 had several avionics options with different characteristics, and it could apparently take off from the deck with six missiles, but it could not land. Comparison with the MiG-31 is a topic for a separate discussion, since each of them had different characteristics in different years.
        2. 0
          14 September 2024 21: 03
          1 how to drag 6 such heavy missiles on one F14 with folding wings?

          Easy:
          https://airwar.ru/weapon/avv/aim54.html
          AIM-54C — 463 kg; 463*6= 2778 kg + 2 "Sidewinders" of 85 kg each, total 2948 kg. At maximum weight on suspensions 6600 kg:
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grumman_F-14_Tomcat#Specifications_(F-14D
          Why was it written off? It's better than the MiG 31 of that period with 4 missiles and tracking targets.

          1. Roads in operation.
          2. The structure began to wear out, old age, microcracks...
        3. +1
          14 September 2024 22: 08
          Quote: ankir13
          2 why was it written off, it’s cooler than the MiG 31 of that period with 4 missiles and tracking targets.
          1. The plane is very expensive, not only to produce, but also to operate.
          2. The aircraft is too big for an aircraft carrier. This led not only to difficult operation, but also to the rapid exhaustion of the airframe's resources.
          3. Phoenix missiles lost their target half the time without any effort on the part of the enemy, and were very expensive.
          4. They wanted to deprive Iran of potential sources of spare parts for their F-14s.
          5. The Americans then massively removed aircraft of all types from aircraft carriers, except for the Hornets (attack aircraft, nuclear weapons carriers, tankers, even anti-submarine aircraft, all were taken down).
    2. 0
      14 September 2024 20: 35
      It's like one Phoenix missile shot down six planes at a distance of more than 100 nautical miles

      It is a six AIM-54C missiles were used to shoot down six aircraft at distances of more than 100 nautical miles, and these aircraft were scattered in space at very large angles:
      https://airwar.ru/enc/fighter/f14.html.
      Finally, in November 1973, a crew of pilot John Wilson and weapons operator Jack Hover carried out a unique interception of six targets at once. The American press dubbed this episode of the Tomcat / Phoenix weapon system test a record one. Within 37-38 seconds from the F-14, six Phoenix missiles were launched at six targets (two BQM-34A and four QT-33), located at a distance of 80-115 km. Four missiles hit their targets, one missile went off track due to equipment failure, and one launch was considered unsuccessful due to target malfunction.
  13. 0
    15 September 2024 16: 47
    the rocket is, of course, huge compared to the 120
    1. 0
      15 September 2024 22: 55
      yeah and in this regard the question arose, is the AIM-174B only suspended under the F/A-18??? or will the F-15+F-16 also handle it... but the F-35 will handle it (and on the internal pylon - which is unlikely, and what about SELS technologies then??)..
      1. -1
        16 September 2024 01: 45
        or F-15+F-16 will also handle it..

        In principle, nothing prevents this. Stealths - of course on external pylons (if there is such a need), they can also take large bombs and cruise missiles there. Dropped/launched the cargo - if further tactical considerations require a stealth configuration - pylons are also thrown (even though they cost money).
        https://forum.warthunder.com/t/aim-174b/133948
  14. 0
    16 September 2024 21: 31
    This missile can reach speeds of up to Mach 3,5 (1 m/s) at an altitude of 180 meters at the end of the active section of the trajectory (at the 100th second of the flight, after which the speed only decreases)

    This speed is achieved on the maximum range trajectory at high altitude, and not at 100 m altitude. The SAM is not fast, which is evident from the wings.
  15. 0
    12 December 2024 13: 08
    Throwing a SAM missile at a fighter is not so easy. This colossus is bigger and heavier than even the Chinese super-long-range PL-17. The US is clearly in a hurry to plug the gaps in the development of long-range B-B class missiles. No one has seen the AIM-260 being developed yet.