you got me excited when i saw new activity in this thread, sad to see there is no new information on this missile :(
also, *aim-174
Where did you get these numbers?
Probably taken from the sea launched version SM-6, which is not nearly as new.
My post was made before the AIM-174 was unveiled. But yes, it is comparable to an R-37M
Not even the Sea launched version can reach those speeds and range.
He got this numbers from this guy:
6 Likes
4 Likes
I didnt get the Gs from My 🍑, but i did with the speed and range, taking into account that launching a missile at the deck and 0 speed is not the same has launching them at 12000m alt and Mach 2, wich Will help them a Lot in energy wise.
I got the range and speed using a calculator, taking into account that it’s max range ground launched is up to 370km, it needs time to accelerates to that speed of Mach 3.5, so putting it at the space Will help it a Lot to not need to use that energy for loft and accelerates, i Will need just to accelerates, and loft at an altitude of thinner air, wich overall by an obvious reason will increase its overall performance.
For example:
RIM-7M max range 30km
AIM-7M max Range 80km
Another one:
MICA VL max range 12km
MICA EM max range 60km
A last one:
MIM-23K max range 50km
Sedjil ( that one on the F-14 IRIAF) beyond 190km, more than the maps límit…
So yeah energy wise i took it from My 🍑, but the G force here is the source: https://internationaldefenceanalysis.com/us-navy-unveils-new-long-range-air-to-air-missile-aim-174b/
40Gs man, the most maneuverable american BVR missile in the world…
*Mach 4.5-5 and 300-400km. Remember the AIM-174 doesn’t have a booster stage like the RIM-174B, so despite being air-launched the performance is rather similar. Still close to the R-37M in terms of speed and range, with both being highly classified it’s impossible to say for sure which has higher performance.
That’s debatable, especially since it’s just being launched from a Hornet compared to the R-37M being launched by a MiG-31. They’re definitely going to have noticeable differences in range and speed.
2 Likes
AIM-152 concepts and pictures
The AAAM (AIM-152) was always essentially just a similar design to the SM-6 which is now in use as the AIM-174 on the F/A-18E/F Hornet. The issue was never finding a design that worked, they already had it… the issue was convincing the government it was needed and to procure it. It’s here now, but the prototypes could be really cool in-game provided they have similar ECCM resistance to current fox-3’s and multipath isn’t reduced. Once we get into the area of having insanely fast and long range AAM’s that are impossible to dodge… it will just be a little bit annoying without the required counters such as EW pods and such.
What is that thing from the General Dynamics advert. Talk about doing a line and drawing. I need it.
Fictional Soviet stealth aircraft. Evidently inspired by the F-117 and Craig Thomas’ MiG-31 Firefox (not to be confused with the real-life MiG-31 Foxhound)
A hornet with even 2 of those things is going to struggle to hit Mach 1.2. Now, maybe if it was mounted on the F-14…
American mains saying the F/A-18 will be OP is hilarious.
Thing’s subsonic with its full missile kit (C-Hornet)
2 Likes
I don’t know what they expect honestly. The only thing the hornet has going for it is being a relatively small target and having high AOA with low stall speed. It’s not good at BVR, has horrid range even for WT standards, and can’t carry high amounts of missiles before dragging itself down to the subsonic category of aircraft.
And because it’s generally slow, it won’t pair well with aim120. If it had anything but aim120, at least it could do HOBS fights
1 Like
That’s why IMO it’s DOA until it can crutch on Aim-9X.
Thats assuming only US gets advanced fox2 missiles, also by that time we may get more modern fox3 with better seekers which are almost impossible to defeat
1 Like
I see no reason to assume any new Fox-3s will have different seekers, given the current set should have drastically different ones and do not.