So that makes the 260 by far the best missile pound for pound?
Icl though 265km at M1.2 and 10km is already pretty good
The Chinese study assumes the stuff at the front end of the missile are PAC-3 attitude control cold gas thrusters which isn’t true, so this is excess weight they’ve accounted for. The other thing is that they assume a 28% higher impulse than the AIM-120D based on motor sizing between the two missiles alone, not accounting for modernized propellants used in the JATM.
So, in short, their assessment is that of a heavier missile with lower impulse than the real one.
4 Likes
how much extra weight do you think?
and what do you think the actual range is?
Not a lot of extra weight, my assumption is that it will be only slightly heavier than existing AMRAAMs so maybe 150-155kg. The empty weight will be lower.
The actual range on a ballistic trajectory in similar conditions to what they’ve outlined might very well be 300km but that isn’t a useful scenario. Head-on against fighter targets the no escape range will be more important - and that we have no real data on. Their rear aspect launch range scenario is based on hopes and dreams imo.
1 Like
So AIM-260 may achieve great ranges even though isnt a big missile, nice
Peregrine is tiny and supposedly achieves similar ranges to early AMRAAM’s. Advancements in booster technology are making smaller missiles more and more viable.
(Also interesting to me that many modern US missiles including Peregrine (but not AIM-260) seem to be converging on a layout more or less identical to the SM missile series particularly the SM-2).
The standard missile just works too well for what it is, simple design that just keeps on giving much like the sidewinder or the FFAR.
Its frankly surprising that it took this long to formally put into service a SM missile as a A2A missile in the form of the AIM-174, such was tried at length in the past but none successfully entered service.
I would not be surprised if we see more SM derived missiles in the future due to such.
1 Like
Indeed, hard to believe the SM-1 came out in the damn 60’s. And the continuous development is very interesting as no other nation really continued a chain of missiles in this way, meanwhile the US did it both with the sidewinder series and the Standard Missile series.
Also absolutely ridiculous to see how far the SM’s have gone from the Tartar that was somewhat mediocre in range to the absolute monsters of the SM-3, SM-6 and SM-2MR Blk IIIC
2 Likes
Throw shit at the wall, some of it might stick.
aim-260 yes likely, d-3 no, i dont want to be 100% but its 99% chance its single pulse
and the standar missile lineage also leads into the aim-174b which makes for an insane missile
1 Like
Purely a reaction to Chinese BVRAAMS and the Navy really only having Aim120C and D models.
Now they also have an EAWACS killer.
Spoiler
Aircraft radars are limited in their power, and you simply don’t need a huge and expensive missile whose potential you can’t utilize due to the radar. Potentially, only the Tomcat could properly utilize SARH SMs. But the Phoenix was still in production. Also, don’t forget the missiles’ size and weight. Dropping a single AGM-78 missile would have created a significant imbalance for F-105D. There is also a huge question about cooling the seeker head, because the Phoenix required cooling.
The AIM-174B is the first because we have entered an era where AWACS and satellite communications can easily control the missile, and the Hornet is nothing more than a missile delivery vehicle. Oh, also it is ARH
The SM-3 in particular is insane.
The SM-6 is really nice too, very versatile missile, but the 3 is absolutely crazy
Yes, and the F-15 was a response to the MiG-25. Nonsense statements that serve no purpose other than to spite one side.
1 Like
Completely different, taking something you already have and repurposing it for another task.
US BVRAAM technology has/had fallen behind.
Compared with Europe, China and Even Russia.
Aim 174, JATM and Perregrine along with 120D
They are getting back to where they need to be.
SM-3 is impressive but I think that’s purely arising from its purpose as an exo-atmospheric missile compared to the others which unlocks a lot of unseen range. For me its not the same level of impressive as SM-2 purely given SM-2’s versatility and longevity.
Fun fact for you: the SM-3 is more or less an SM-2 Blk IV with an additional booster attached.
Indeed, but I think this was more a stroke of genius (and US doctrine of incremental development of proven systems) rather than purely seeing what sticks.
1 Like
This is a gross oversimplification. In terms of speed, range and operational altitude, the SM-2ER Blk4A is similar to the SM-6, while the SM-3, in addition to the Mk136, has a kinetic interceptor, which is completely different from the SM-2 concept.
there isnt that much supply of SM6s, whilst yest aim174b does pretty much outrange everything its not a large overmatch, its a stopgap missile to provide the niche extreme long range capability to strike awacs tankers etch, which regardless what the propaganda would like you to belive is also what missiles like r37m are designed to do, you dont want to use these missiles on fighters ideally.
eh thats a stretch, with europe its barely a gap, and with china its more a matter of size constraints than it is a tech gap, pl15, pl17 etch arent more advanced than things like aim120d3(dual pulse is not new tech its a new adaptation of existing tech) they are however larger missiles designed for larger aircraft, j20 and j35 are both significantly larger aircraft, ESPECIALLY when compared to f35(f22 is also smaller mind you) they have significantly larger IWB which allow for development of larger missiles, pl15 is both wider and longer than aim120, and pl12 never really matched the aim120 and was retired in favour of pl15(absolutely the play).
not to discount chinese capability in any way of course, they do have the longer reach but i calling that a technological gap is mostly wrong, and america values logistic over all else, so they wouldnt develop a missile only able to be carried by 4.5 gen aircraft.
forgot to menton that pl17(20) is even larger than pl15, pl-21 afaik should be similar in size to pl15 when its developed, i also forgot to mention the AESA seekers on the chinese missiles, that is a technological gap, albeit aesa seekers are somewhat overstated in significance online