Afaik the cost per unit of the AIM-174 is more than the Meteor.
Assuming the AIM-174 costs about as much as the SM-6 it’s based off, that is.
The point can be made that money was saved on development costs tho. And since we don’t have any Price Per Unit estimates on stuff like the PL-17 or AIM-424, we can’t really comment on that.
An argument could be made that the AIM-174 could be cheaper than the SM-6, since it seems to have some differences (namely the motor) compared to the SM-6.
Air launched versions of ground/sea launched missiles can remove a decent amount of thrust and/or fuel to get the same range cause they are almost always being launched way higher up and at much higher speeds so aim-174 is gonna be cheaper per unit than sm-6 but the amount its cheaper by is the real question
I noticed this when looking into the differences. SM-6 has a MUCH Chunkier Motor.
But the AIM-174 would only be equal in Price Per Unit to the Meteor if it costed 1/3 that of the SM-6…
that’s the mk-72 booster that gets jettisoned after 6 seconds of flight, after that the air and sea launched versions are practically the same. the superhornet does the job of that booster and probably outperforms it too
AIM-174 is quite a bit more expensive, presumably so is AIM-424 and other foreign missiles.
The problem is, the AIM-424 is specifically made for internal carriage and extreme range yet it is rocket powered, by no means does it seem like a cheap missiles. It is the most high end air to air missile in the US arsenal publicly known
That’s why I find the advantages of ramjets over modern rocket powered missiles so questionable, they’ve always been dropped or not even proposed despite such a big supposed advantage
so nothing but a “hunch” because the US hasn’t fielded one. good stuff.
Not just the US, but China and Russia too
Max range of 250 km+* (pretty sure I read it in a paper somewhere, I’ll have to find it)
Sustained propulsion > ~7 second boost then glide to target
Tbf, you keep comparing the AIM-424 and AIM-174B to missiles of completely different classes and purposes. It would be like comparing the AIM-424/174B to AIM-260 as well.
Should I find the AIM-260’s potential dual-pulse motor questionable just because AIM-174B completely outclass it in range and doesn’t have dual-pulse motor?
It’s also like comparing the AIM-54 to AIM-120/MICA/R-77s.
I use these larger missiles since they show solid rockets are the way to go for long range air to air. They also disprove the reduced cost theory
No you didn’t though, you can’t make any conclusions whatsoever when you still compare missiles of different classes/purposes. AIM-424 and AIM-174B aren’t just what I would call “long-range” which I’d reserve for the AIM-260/Meteor/R-77M/R-37M, they’re in what I’d call ultra-long range missiles. Feel free to use the AIM-260 to try to explain why rocket motors are the way over the ramjet Meteor.
These solid rocket motors are the US’ bet on what to do for ultra long range air to air. It’s still not the same class and purpose as these other missiles. The only thing comparable to the AIM-174B/Malice is the future Stratus-RS which is being produced by a country that also knows how to make dual-pulse motors and conventional motors.
The thing is with your comparison is that since the 174 and PL-17 are so much larger and heavier and you refuse to look at the missiles and the weight and size they have. The reason to go with ramjet is to get a lot longer range within more or less the same size constraints. So compare the Meteor to AIM-120. Or if you still want to look at the 174 then take in to account all the drawbacks of having such an incredibly heavy and cumbersome missile. Yes of course it has longer range but you give up everything else. Meteor will get you a long way to the range of the 174 in the same size of an AIM-120.
In the context of the RIM/AIM-174 the biggest drawback with the ramjet other than increased complexity and cost is that you need to stay within the atmosphere where there is still enough oxygen to supply the motor, making an anti-ballistic missile which is a large part of what the SM-6 was designed for (terminal phase) would also be pretty idiotic since the intercept happens relatively quickly. No need for a long sustained burn since you want to get up to speed as quickly as possible in order to effectively hit the missile. So you want a lot of trust for a short duration. For the purpose of staying in parallel with the surface at longer range the advantages of a ramjet becomes significant.
Now the SM-6 isn’t exo-atmospheric to my knowledge, that would be the work for SM-3, but anti ballistic defence was still one of the priorities of the design.
just terms, to me meteor/r77m/aim260 all sort of fill that AIM-120ish role so i call AIM-174, PL-17, and AIM-424 long range because thats what they are relative to the newer mid tier AAM. even then, China, US, and Russia have all still opted for rocket powered missiles in that class.
in air to air only good for stuff like tankers or AWACS. and they are pursuing Comet as a true air to air long range replacement for Meteor, i think you yourself mentioned something about it being a solid rocket motor
this still doesnt explain PL-17 or AIM-424
So you do acknowledge then that you’re comparing missiles of completely different class/range. It still doesn’t make sense why you’ve been using AIM-424/AIM-174B for comparison when you have the AIM-260 right there.
While it is stated to have a purpose of going after AWACS, nothing suggests it can’t go after fighters either.
I did say it was a guess, and the Comet is an off-the-shelf solution for the short term until iirc, the actual Meteor ramjet replacement.
like i already said, it shows solid rocket is the choice for the best long range air to air missiles. next to nothing is actually known about the AIM-260, with AIM-174 we have weight and of course all the other information available for SM-6/SM-2ER blk IV. with AIM-424 we at least have a public range minimum of 250+ nautical miles and a weight of 1500lb
well, PL-15 seems closer in terms of mass to Meteor, but all the information im aware of regarding it is for the export version
Neither of which we have any real info on. PL-17 is chinese so all those numbers given out can’t be seen as any form of reliable, plus, IT IS HUGE. Of course they could get adequate range from such a huge missile even if it is not a ram jet.
AIM-424 has just been unveiled and just about nothing is known about it other than a navy publicised range and the fact that it is roughly similar to the 174 in size but a little shorter so that it still can be crammed in to the internal bay of the F-35C. It is still a really large missile which would be needed for that range with a solid rocket motor.
So once again the only missiles you can compare to are magnitudes larger than the Meteor. As @Macron-Spokesman stated, compare to the AIM-260 instead as that is at a comparable size to Meteor.
So roughly 2-2,5x the range of the Meteor at 3,5x the weight… does that seem like it is as efficient? Would be interesting to se a ramjet air to air missile at that weight and size to see how much longer the range would be. Given the comparison between AIM-120 and Meteor I would take a quick guess and say that it would be quite significant.
you see, the difference is the 200km estimates for meteor are estimates for the real maximum range. if we went by the manufacturer/operator public ranges then it would be 4.6x longer at 3.5x the weight
I really don’t understand the cock measuring here. Conflating different terms that are incompatible in any kind of comparison
We don’t have actual cross ranges for any of the missiles people are talking about. And any number that’t not that is completely useless in any kind of comparison.
By comparing it with nothing else that currently exists in its class?
You can’t even really use the AIM-174B to compare either since it was never a missile designed with the express purpose of air to air usage but was an emergency option that was utilizing the SM-6.
What’s left then is the AIM-424
