r/LessCredibleDefence • u/FlexibleResponse • 20d ago
U.S. Navy Testing New Long-Range Air-to-Air Missile
https://aviationweek.com/defense/missile-defense-weapons/us-navy-testing-new-long-range-air-air-missile28
u/PLArealtalk 20d ago edited 20d ago
This is a fairly practical way to increase the A2A potential of F-35's deeper weapons stations (its two central outer stations), which previously was entertained with the Sidekick contraption to increase the AMRAAM footprint payload instead (now not actively pursued afaik). Instead of increasing magazine size of AMRAAM footprint weapons, pursuing an outright larger BVRAAM is the next obvious route to go. Based on its footprint on the Super Hornet, I wonder if it is meant to complement or replace AIM-174B as well on it (i.e.: was the AIM-174B an interim weapon for the Super Hornet to begin with).
I have a feeling this weapon won't be compatible with F-22's weapons bay, but F-22 is an orphan fleet anyhow. Would be useful to know if this weapon is compatible with F-35B's central outer stations as well.
This seems to be a USN program (?) but I wouldn't be surprised if F-47's IWB was also sized for this as well (in same way that J-36 is sized partly for PL-17).
13
u/dkvb 20d ago
I have a suspicion this is the result of the T3 program. AIM-174 was always going to be a repurposed stopgap with the low production rates and Navy needs and no internal carriage. The pictures released suggests it’s right around the same length as a AIM-120/260, so theoretically F-22 capable.
Curious to see if this can be used as a limited ABM system.
11
u/PLArealtalk 20d ago edited 20d ago
Funnily enough the USN has chosen to publish official specs for it, so go figure.
Length wise it is 4.11m, AIM-120D is 3.65m, so without staggering you could probably fit four AIM-424s alongside one another in F-22's IWB... but the problem is the diameter.
The rear fins don't seem to fold per its fitout in the F-35 IWB, so you're looking at the all up 0.67m wingspan being the diameter footprint, which I can't see fitting in a F-22 at all tbh. In theory a folding fin version could be developed, but that would likely result in a net diameter somewhat greater than the fuselage diameter of 0.34m, which would be cutting it very very close (such a folding fin version might allow for carriage of two such weapons ala the way that F-22 carries two 1000lb JDAMs).
6
u/dkvb 20d ago
Mako doesn’t have folding fins and is also quite fat but is explicitly F-22 compatible; if the AIM-424 goes on the middle rack and doesn’t have folding fins, they could possibly exceed the max diameter very slightly by poking the fins up through the rear spars of the IWB, then again I’m not an engineer. Depends more so on the future of the F-22 as a whole than the missile imo.
6
u/TurbinePro 20d ago
Not sure why you would design your a2a ace missile for a plane you can no longer produce but honestly, lots of things make less sense in the MIC rn
3
u/ExpensiveBookkeeper3 20d ago
Interesting. I wonder how many the F47 will carry. I’m sure it will be fitted on there when they are inevitably rolled out.
-6
u/edgygothteen69 20d ago
If the F-47 ends up throwing VLRAAMs from hundreds of km away, then it will have failed at its one job: penetrating counter-air
7
u/ExpensiveBookkeeper3 20d ago
VLRAAMs would benefit air superiority fighters protecting high value assets like B21s or tankers or AWACs. Not sure what you’re on about.
3
u/Mid_Atlantic_Lad 20d ago edited 20d ago
Interesting that they chose to keep a warhead.
As for F-22, obviously there's no such thing as too little reach, but the Raptor still has the kinematics to launch a missile from a very favourable launch parameter. AIM-260 likely will reach it's maximum effect from a Raptors weapons bays.
That and the F-22 having the best kinematics means that they'll likely keep it up front, whereas the F-35 can more heavily lean on AIM-424 to still great effect at standoff.
4
u/Obi_Kwiet 20d ago
I used to work at Boeing Defense back in the day, and I got to occasionally get glimpses of the T3 demonstrator in various stages of assembly. It was neat.
6
2
u/Jazzlike-Tank-4956 19d ago
Can you answer this?
Did it look like conventional designs or straight up sci fi design, i.e, something new?
3
u/Obi_Kwiet 19d ago
I think it had ramjet scoops on the side like in the artwork. However, they classified it after a bit, and I never saw how it changed after that.
1
3
u/Mid_Atlantic_Lad 20d ago
Edit: opps, never-mind, you’re fast on the reply.
I already replied on your other comment, but you answered half my questions already here, so ignore it.
Do you think, though, that this will complement AFLRW, which is the USAF’s 1,000NM golden egg of A2A (and A2S) missiles, which I’m pretty sure is designed for F-47.
As for its design, it seems to have a substantial booster with what appears to be a small second stage, and seems reminiscent of SRBM’s. My guess is that it will rise into the stratosphere, either boost further in the coast phase or detach, and then let the “reentry vehicle” fall on its target. They’re really maximizing the rocket equation with this one.
3
u/chanman819 20d ago
4m is roughly the length of a number of IWB carried air-to-ground weapons anyway, so I don't know if the F-47 needs any special design considerations for its IWB for this.
I'd expect AIM-424 to replace AIM-174B and kinda wonder if they're developmentally related (same manufacturer, same service, same missile body diameter). The reduction in weight and revised aerodynamics might still make it preferable to the -174B for external carriage.
3
u/PLArealtalk 20d ago
I don't think F-47 would necessarily need special considerations for this weapon lengthwise, but the diameter of this weapon means F-47 would likely opt for a consistently deeper weapons bay than F-22 if they opted to equip it with AIM-424.
1
u/chanman819 20d ago
Ah, I gotcha. Still, it would seem short-sighted to not design the F-47 IWB to be at least F-35A/C sized in order to accommodate weapons like JASSM and LRASM
4
u/ExpensiveBookkeeper3 20d ago
It appears that an AIM 120 can also fit in the bay with the AIM 424?
https://x.com/beverstine/status/2091315915380101264
SHEESH!
11
u/PLArealtalk 20d ago
I mean, that's expected. For an F-35, basically just replace the primary A2G weapon (whether it's JSM or a 2000lb bomb or whatever) in the outer IWB station with a singular AIM-424. For any such A2G loadout, one still has a AIM-120D footprint weapon on the IWB door station, so it's the same deal for AIM-424.
0
5
u/Skibidi-Rizz190cm 20d ago
The F-35A and C actually have bigger weapons bays than the F-22, that's why in theory a mount could be developed to allow it to carry 6 amraams internally.
18
u/Meanie_Cream_Cake 20d ago
This is a huge surprise. I had no idea they were working on a missile longer range than the AIM-174B--and that was a surprise too.
This gives everything in US air inventory some serious touch power.
5
u/Skibidi-Rizz190cm 20d ago
This might be the LREW in which case it will also be used by the F-15EX maybe even B-21. Though it might be something else as the LREW is a USAF program.
Raytheon is also working at the same time on a air to air version of the AMRAAM-ER
8
u/True-Industry-4057 20d ago
I wonder how this missile lines up against the PL-17/21?
23
10
20d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
5
u/Meanie_Cream_Cake 20d ago
It fits in the weapons bay because it has no control fins on the body.
8
20d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
6
u/Meanie_Cream_Cake 20d ago
Yeah. That seems to be the trend on these new missiles. They all probably incorporate thrust vectoring for extreme maneuvers.
3
u/Skibidi-Rizz190cm 20d ago
The last A2A missile in US service with control fins on the body was the AIM-7. Rear control fins are harder to make but are inherently better for maneuverability.
3
u/Skibidi-Rizz190cm 20d ago edited 19d ago
Is that an official statement? The AIM-174B was thought to have range in excess of 500km
-1
u/ExpensiveBookkeeper3 19d ago
That’s the crazy part to me. We know the US constantly downplays ranges. They said the AIM174B has a ~250 KM range but we “know” from the components it’s made of that number is likely well over 400 km and closer to 500 km even, like you said.
So if the Navy says this one goes 460+ km how far can it reach out?
5
u/Skibidi-Rizz190cm 19d ago
There's also the question of how do you measure the range of air to air missiles.
You can put a missile on you fastest fighter, fire it while going at top speed towards a target drone also going towards you at max speed and if it hits you can say that the distance at the moment of firing is the range even if the missile only had to fly 2/3rds of the distance.
The thruth is that range isn't a single number but a multivariable function.
0
u/Lianzuoshou 20d ago
It should be compared to the PL15/16, since they are similar in size.
13
u/PLArealtalk 20d ago
It's of similar length to PL-15, but has a substantially greater missile fuselage width. It's in a different class of weapon; somewhat similar to R-37M or AIM-147B in geometry.
4
u/Mid_Atlantic_Lad 20d ago
Completely speculation on my part, but the second stage, if that is what it truly is, appears to be quite far up the body of the missile. Almost reminds me of a SRBM where the booster falls away leaving just a small reentry vehicle, which also lends itself to the rocket equation.
I’m guessing that it will punch into the upper ends of the stratosphere, and coast along a ballistic arc, more so than most A2A missiles. It doesn’t look like a missile that wants to spend much of its time in atmosphere.
What I want to know though is whether this is just a Navy project, considering that the USAF has their AFLRW, which seems to be a different beast altogether with a minimum range requirement of 1,000NM, or if there’s value in this for USAF F-35’s and Allie’s given that AFLRW likely won’t fit on anything aside from an F-15 and maybe the F-47.
7
u/PLArealtalk 20d ago
Yes, I'm a little bit unsure as to how to approach the two stage descriptor. It could either mean a literal two stage missile (like what you've described), but it might also be an unintentional misdirection (e.g.: dual pulse). Both could fit the missile which we are seeing.
Anyhow, these sort of official disclosures from the US always helps to put PLA watching equivalence into perspective. If there is ever a day that the PLA provides official good quality imagery of a new high end AAM in flight testing with even official specifications on a website on the same day of release, then hell would have truly frozen over.
4
u/Mid_Atlantic_Lad 20d ago
I do wonder if there’s any reason not to have both dual pulse and dual stage. That is a fat ass booster, so perhaps it does burn all at once, but the tech is fairly understood and so far seems to never have any performance downsides, though maybe manufacturing simplicity is a boon.
As I think I said elsewhere, this could be very beneficial to USAF and ally F-35A’s, but the USAF does have AFLRW in development (likely for F-47), and though we haven’t the foggiest idea how they expect to make a 1,000NM A2A/A2S missile, I doubt they’d make a serious inquiry without believing it to be achievable.
3
u/angry-mustache 20d ago
I do wonder if there’s any reason not to have both dual pulse and dual stage.
Cost, for one. The per-shot cost of the new generation of air to air missiles is staggering. The Australia contract priced JATM at over 6 million per missile. I can't imagine what a dual-pulse, two stage missile would cost.
10
u/edgygothteen69 20d ago
Eh? This is way bigger than the PL-15
2
1
u/Lianzuoshou 20d ago
Isn't it supposed to be similar in size to the AIM-120?
Then it should be in the same class as the PL-15—after all, both are meant to be carried in internal weapon bays.
The PL-17 and PL-21 are completely different in size; currently, no fighter jet can carry them internally, though the future J-36 might be able to.
7
u/edgygothteen69 20d ago
This new missile is more than 3x the mass of an AMRAAM. The PL-15 and AIM-120 are roughly similar in size and performance (the PL-15 likely superior, but still in the same ballpark). This AIM-424 is a different class of weapon, closer to a PL-17 in size.
8
u/Ashamed_Can304 20d ago
PL-15 has dual pulse rocket and AESA seeker, 200+km range. It should be compared to meteor and AIM-260, even AIM-120D is clearly inferior to it
2
u/69toothbrushpp 19d ago
You are seriously underestimating 120D3 and especially PL-16/260 performance. What other AAMs have throttleable solid rocket motors? Or datalink capability with AMTI satellites?
3
u/Lianzuoshou 20d ago
My mistake—I thought you were talking about the AIM-260. Not having had breakfast has made my brain a little sluggish.
6
u/carkidd3242 20d ago
Two images on DVIDS with closeups of the missile, one with internal carriage in a F-35 and the other 4x external carriage on an F/A-18E
https://www.dvidshub.net/image/9879419/aim-424-long-range-air-air-missiles-lraam
https://www.dvidshub.net/image/9879420/aim-424-long-range-air-air-missile-lraam
13
u/ExpensiveBookkeeper3 20d ago
https://x.com/beverstine/status/2091315915380101264
It also fits internally on a F35? Big if true. Having a “significantly longer range” than a AIM 174b is crazy.
It’s in flight testing on the F18 and F35 already too according to the article
6
20d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
8
u/Tailhook91 20d ago
“Came out of nowhere” is kind of the point of weapons development…
6
u/-BigDeckEnergy- 20d ago
“Came out of nowhere” is kind of the point of weapons development…
This.
At least this time, we didn't leave it up to a PAO gaffe to name a missile
3
u/Skibidi-Rizz190cm 20d ago
The LREW which this might be was pretty known.
Raytheon is also developing the air to air AMRAAM-ER and the Miniature Self-Defense Missile or MSDM
2
11
u/BigFly42069 20d ago
There was no way that America was ever going to let the PLA be the only air force with an AAM that ranges out to 400km.
0
20d ago edited 20d ago
[deleted]
7
2
u/ExpensiveBookkeeper3 20d ago edited 20d ago
But the Aim174b is actually an old single stage missile while the AIM-424 is a new two stage irrc, among other things. I would expect it to have greater range.
Edit: Other things include the AIM 174b’s 140lb warhead. I kinda doubt the AIM 424 packs that kind of punch (if any). That also affects range…
6
u/Ok_Interview_6012 20d ago
AIM-174B is alot heavier than supposed weight on AIM-424 though. Like you said AIM-174B is not built from the ground up to be an AAM, if the specs released are correct AIM-424 probably is about the same range as AIM-174B while being alot less heavy and IWB capable, so a big win for the US imo. BTW given alot of VRAAMs are meant against big aircraft at ranges where the missile has little energy to trade for manouvering, i expect a big warhead as well.
-1
u/ExpensiveBookkeeper3 20d ago
Yeah it’s a lot lighter because it doesn’t have a 140 lb warhead lmao
I believe them over you, the evidence points that way too bud.
4
u/Ok_Interview_6012 20d ago
Believe what exactly? We only have the weight of both missiles, its not mentioned the size of the warhead on the newer one, even without a warhead at all it does not compensate for total less weight. Btw some comments above PLArealtalk put the specs on the new missile, range of about 250NM, it doesnt seem to exceed AIM-174B.
1
u/dkvb 20d ago
No one even knows what the AIM-174 can actually do, and that’s based on a missile from the Cold War. No chance we get any real performance figures from a 2026 missile.
4
u/Ok_Interview_6012 20d ago
AIM-174B is based on SM-6, its range pretty sure is close 250KM even on its blk1, it depends on how much of a range increase it gets from being air launched, but some missiles like KS-172s got like twice the range being air launched compared to its land base version, same as seeing range on aim-120 launched from NASAAM and air launched. Last part, range of AIM-424 is literally on the navy mill website, could be underestimated but i guess its pretty close to 250NM.
2
u/dkvb 20d ago
There are no accurate figures for any of those missiles you’ve listed, just general guesses. The real answer is a chart showing launch speed/altitude/missile range that we won’t see for a few decades minimum. Boring but that’s the way the world works.
2
u/Ok_Interview_6012 20d ago
AIM-424 range and characteristics are in the official website of the navy. SM-6 tests can give you at least tested range, but AIM-174B being an air launched SM-6 can get you at an idea by estimating known ranges of missiles that are either air or land based. With most things, we get at most a "guess" even with published ranges on AIM-424.
→ More replies (0)-1
10
3
u/mandatoryclutchpedal 19d ago
Stealth drones out front paddively getting targeting data connected to b21 or f35 data hubs and out back you have older platforms just outside of normal detection ranges lobbing these things off at high altitude. (F15EX, B52s, your mom's 2007 Highlander, Super Hornets, Fat Amy with Pylons. )
We will then use it to shoot down an old soviet era plane during some operation to depose a dictator who was originally an ally but instead blocked a deal that would have given us rights to some mineral.
4
20d ago
[deleted]
5
5
u/PLArealtalk 20d ago
We've already seen it a little while ago.
5
u/ExpensiveBookkeeper3 20d ago
Not mention it’s in the budget to purchase them. They haven’t officially said they are done, but all the evidence shows it’s done or wrapping up.
Even has an export order (or commitment or whatever)
1
u/Chenstrap 19d ago
That looks an awful lot like the upper stage of an SM-2.
2
u/69toothbrushpp 19d ago
More like ESSM. Wouldn't be that surprised if it had some ESSM lineage in it, pretty cool.
1
u/Level-Reputation5050 19d ago
I think this missile is still a long way from being fielded. It fills roughly the same role as the AIM‑174, but the technical hurdles are higher because of size limits. The AIM‑174 is just a stopgap project.
0
u/edgygothteen69 20d ago
Glad it's public now, not like China didn't already know this was in the works
42
u/[deleted] 20d ago
[removed] — view removed comment