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

Mere weeks ago, the US Navy put its newest air-to-air missile in service. It’s the biggest and longest-ranged US air-to-air missile ever. For a few years now, the new missile has occasionally been spotted under Super Hornet fighter jets.
Its designation: AIM-174. This video will cover the potential of the new missile and compare it with the now-retired Phoenix missile, the AMRAAM, and China's big air-to-air missile.
But even more importantly, this video will explore how the missile might be used and why it is such a big deal for the US near future firepower.

00:00 Intro
01:14 AIM-174 vs SM-6
03:46 Phoenix and AMRAAM compared
07:34 Other missiles compared
11:13 AIM-174 combat uses (vs China)
17:43 The missile in service

If you want to watch our videos without ads, if you want quick replies to any questions you might have, if you want early access scripts and videos, monthly release schedules - become our Patron.

[juliuszkocinski]

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

[googacct]

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

[wax]

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

[omgitsabloodyandroid]

To shoot aircraft down from 200 miles away?

[thegameplaymemer]

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

[ycplum]

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

[zhubotang]

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

[ryanperry]

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

edit: oh nvm he hit the nail right on the head

[piotrd.]

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

[Kenneth_James]

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

[ferdimond]

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

[TomatoFettuccini]

Hey Blinkov just an FYI for you:

MK isn't pronounced as you have been. It is a shorthand for "Mark" which means "version".

So the correct pronunciation of Mk72 Booster is "Mark 72 Booster".

[MostlyPennyCat]

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

[Nathan-vtjz]

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

[rophiamphu]

I think they really downplayed the range.

[Stellar]

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

[bigmike]

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

[TheNittyGrittyBruv]

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

[jaymoore]

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

[LumineScientiaeFidei]

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

Not 280. Not 250. Not 200.
Sorry, you are completely wrong.