User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 6/11/2024 12:09:05 AM EDT
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/11/2024 12:11:42 AM EDT
[#1]
Never even considered an sm6 being air launched. That's cool.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/11/2024 12:25:15 AM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By delemorte: Never even considered an sm6 being air launched. That's cool. I have  There are lots of potentially interesting applications one can dream up for that sort of system. Hopefully, those sorts of things wouldn't be squandered in the Red Sea killing Phantom 3s 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/11/2024 12:28:06 AM EDT
[#3]
Outranges the Navy's old Phoenix by 30-odd miles. Three launched in anger and never hit anything.
|
|
|
|
FL, USA
|
Posted: 6/11/2024 12:29:46 AM EDT
[#4]
They should had done the B-1R concept with that missile.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/11/2024 12:37:30 AM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Sinister: Outranges the Navy's old Phoenix by 30-odd miles. Three launched in anger and never hit anything. They took the booster off but air launching should almost triple the range. Probably triple that of the AIM-54 if it’s fired from high and fast, maybe more. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/11/2024 12:39:31 AM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By AR18: They should had done the B-1R concept with that missile. More like they should have done a true F-111 replacement. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/11/2024 12:51:00 AM EDT
[#7]
Wonder what the launch sequence is for that behemoth? Drop weapon, crank opposite direction and pull 6G’s?
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/11/2024 11:13:16 AM EDT
[#8]
This is the kind of diversity the navy needs to embrace.
|
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 6/11/2024 11:16:23 AM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Sinister: Outranges the Navy's old Phoenix by 30-odd miles. Three launched in anger and never hit anything. The Iranians drove up that tally with theirs
|
|
|
OH, USA
|
Posted: 6/11/2024 11:16:50 AM EDT
[#10]
I imagine they're seeing alot of Jerry rigging stuff in Ukraine they're cooking up all sorts of odd combinations to test out.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/11/2024 11:17:57 AM EDT
[Last Edit: dorobuta]
[#11]
when do we see the BUFF with wing pylons and 8 of these slung under the wings?
 ETA - could the buff carry them with the first stage attached? Asking for a friend. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/11/2024 11:18:05 AM EDT
[#12]
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/11/2024 11:18:46 AM EDT
[#13]
Finally, an AIM-54 replacement.
|
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 6/11/2024 11:34:52 AM EDT
[#14]
Can SM6's target missiles? Maybe this is an attempt to push the engagement envelope for incoming low altitude hypersonics beyond the fleet's engagement zone?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/11/2024 11:37:17 AM EDT
[#15]
Russia/Iran/Pali/China shills converge!
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/11/2024 11:37:59 AM EDT
[#16]
Is this a significant gain in ASAT capabilities?
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/11/2024 11:47:08 AM EDT
[Last Edit: Airborne11B]
[#17]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By MEK: Is this a significant gain in ASAT capabilities? Not when the SM3 exists and is a perfectly able option for LEO stuff. Nothing is hitting GEO outside of dedicated space launch vehicles. As for this, that’s hot. F-35s loiter and provide guidance, Super bugs are missile trucks just like the F-15EX will be. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/11/2024 11:47:41 AM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By MEK: Is this a significant gain in ASAT capabilities? For perspective….the newest variation AIM-120 has a published range (A2A) of 100 miles (maybe more) with a 44LB warhead. The SM6 has a surface to air range (published) of 150 miles and has a 140LB warhead. Thats when launching stationary from the ground. It’s got to be 200+ miles at least air launched. F18 has a published max external payload of 13,700lbs and the SM6 is a beast at 3,300lbs Could it carry 4 of these (13,200)? That would be nuts to see lol. |
|
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 6/11/2024 11:51:55 AM EDT
[Last Edit: castlebravo84]
[#19]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Airborne11B: Not when the SM3 exists and is a perfectly able option for LEO stuff. Nothing is hitting GEO outside of dedicated space launch vehicles. As for this, that’s hot. F-35s loiter and provide guidance, Super bugs are missile trucks just like the F-15EX will be. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Airborne11B: Originally Posted By MEK: Is this a significant gain in ASAT capabilities? Not when the SM3 exists and is a perfectly able option for LEO stuff. Nothing is hitting GEO outside of dedicated space launch vehicles. As for this, that’s hot. F-35s loiter and provide guidance, Super bugs are missile trucks just like the F-15EX will be. It's also a nearly hypersonic antiship missile. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/11/2024 11:54:15 AM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By ServusVeritatis: For perspective….the newest variation AIM-120 has a published range (A2A) of 100 miles (maybe more) with a 44LB warhead. The SM6 has a surface to air range (published) of 150 miles and has a 140LB warhead. Thats when launching stationary from the ground. It’s got to be 200+ miles at least air launched. F18 has a published max external payload of 13,700lbs and the SM6 is a beast at 3,300lbs Could it carry 4 of these (13,200)? That would be nuts to see lol. so 300+ range with air launched (and already at speed...) OH YEAH... plus they would be easy to sycronize to be cresting the radar horrizon from 2 angled at a time from the poor CV that the chineese use as an "ordinance absorption platform" .. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/11/2024 11:54:32 AM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By castlebravo84: It's also a nearly hypersonic antiship missile. That too. The SM3 is a bad motherfucker. |
|
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 6/11/2024 12:01:48 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By ServusVeritatis: For perspective….the newest variation AIM-120 has a published range (A2A) of 100 miles (maybe more) with a 44LB warhead. The SM6 has a surface to air range (published) of 150 miles and has a 140LB warhead. Thats when launching stationary from the ground. It’s got to be 200+ miles at least air launched. F18 has a published max external payload of 13,700lbs and the SM6 is a beast at 3,300lbs Could it carry 4 of these (13,200)? That would be nuts to see lol. The 3300lbs figure includes the ~1500lb Mk72 booster, so this air launched version will be significantly lighter, and might not have any extra range over the two stage VLS version our DDGs shoot. Of course, being able to fly a Super Hornet out hundreds of miles from the fleet and then shoot the missile gives it considerable reach. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/11/2024 12:04:51 PM EDT
[#23]
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/11/2024 12:08:10 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Stryfe: Is the SM6 bigger than it's older sibling? https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/32913/an-air-to-air-view-of-the-underside-of-a-3238280.JPG 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/11/2024 12:09:34 PM EDT
[#25]
God bless the US Navy. America! Fuck Yeah!
|
|
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 6/11/2024 12:12:24 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Airborne11B: F-35s loiter and provide guidance, Super bugs are missile trucks just like the F-15EX will be. @MudEagle |
|
|
AK, USA
|
Posted: 6/11/2024 12:12:59 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By castlebravo84: The 3300lbs figure includes the ~1500lb Mk72 booster, so this air launched version will be significantly lighter, and might not have any extra range over the two stage VLS version our DDGs shoot. Of course, being able to fly a Super Hornet out hundreds of miles from the fleet and then shoot the missile gives it considerable reach. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By castlebravo84: Originally Posted By ServusVeritatis: For perspective….the newest variation AIM-120 has a published range (A2A) of 100 miles (maybe more) with a 44LB warhead. The SM6 has a surface to air range (published) of 150 miles and has a 140LB warhead. Thats when launching stationary from the ground. It’s got to be 200+ miles at least air launched. F18 has a published max external payload of 13,700lbs and the SM6 is a beast at 3,300lbs Could it carry 4 of these (13,200)? That would be nuts to see lol. The 3300lbs figure includes the ~1500lb Mk72 booster, so this air launched version will be significantly lighter, and might not have any extra range over the two stage VLS version our DDGs shoot. Of course, being able to fly a Super Hornet out hundreds of miles from the fleet and then shoot the missile gives it considerable reach. With that kind of weight savings an MQ-9 could carry 2. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/11/2024 12:20:24 PM EDT
[#28]
What would one SM6 do to a Chinese roll-on roll-off ship?
|
|
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 6/11/2024 12:28:01 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By GunLvrPHD: What would one SM6 do to a Chinese roll-on roll-off ship? Probably not much unless we get very lucky with secondary effects and PLAN damage control proves to be just as shit the Russian navy's. What an SM-6 could do is knock out the combat systems of an escorting DDG and open the way for maritime strike tomahawks, quicksink bombs, ect. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/11/2024 12:34:29 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By castlebravo84: The 3300lbs figure includes the ~1500lb Mk72 booster, so this air launched version will be significantly lighter, and might not have any extra range over the two stage VLS version our DDGs shoot. Of course, being able to fly a Super Hornet out hundreds of miles from the fleet and then shoot the missile gives it considerable reach. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By castlebravo84: Originally Posted By ServusVeritatis: For perspective .the newest variation AIM-120 has a published range (A2A) of 100 miles (maybe more) with a 44LB warhead. The SM6 has a surface to air range (published) of 150 miles and has a 140LB warhead. Thats when launching stationary from the ground. It's got to be 200+ miles at least air launched. F18 has a published max external payload of 13,700lbs and the SM6 is a beast at 3,300lbs Could it carry 4 of these (13,200)? That would be nuts to see lol. The 3300lbs figure includes the ~1500lb Mk72 booster, so this air launched version will be significantly lighter, and might not have any extra range over the two stage VLS version our DDGs shoot. Of course, being able to fly a Super Hornet out hundreds of miles from the fleet and then shoot the missile gives it considerable reach. For anyone that liked Red Storm Rising, I would point out that the final fate of the real Ruben James was as a target, being hit by a SM6. |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 6/11/2024 12:38:35 PM EDT
[#31]
Why are we trying to escalate with China? the globalists sure want ww3 to keep Trump out.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/11/2024 12:48:19 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Stryfe: Is the SM6 bigger than it's older sibling? https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/32913/an-air-to-air-view-of-the-underside-of-a-3238280.JPG Sexy! |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/11/2024 3:16:22 PM EDT
[Last Edit: MudEagle]
[#33]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By JShepard: @MudEagle Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By JShepard: Originally Posted By Airborne11B: F-35s loiter and provide guidance, Super bugs are missile trucks just like the F-15EX will be. @MudEagle ARFCOM GD combat airpower.  Attached File |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/11/2024 4:40:08 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By MudEagle: ARFCOM GD combat airpower. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/470117/OIG3-1_jpg-3238387.JPG LOL it just struck me that missile truck is probably somewhat demeaning to fighter/attack pilots like yall just go full banzai and yeet 16 AMRAAMs into the void, let em go pitbull and turn around…didn’t mean that at all. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/12/2024 3:22:29 AM EDT
[Last Edit: MudEagle]
[#35]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Airborne11B: LOL it just struck me that missile truck is probably somewhat demeaning to fighter/attack pilots like yall just go full banzai and yeet 16 AMRAAMs into the void, let em go pitbull and turn around…didn’t mean that at all. Nah, it isn't that. It is that the "missile truck" concept is something that doesn't fit with the current capability state of sensors and missiles. Its core idea is that the lesser-capable (lesser sensors, lesser speed/maneuveravility, lesser stealthiness) "truck" is sitting far away from the threat range of adversary missiles, and the stealthy aircraft with the good sensors can be safely closer to the adversaries and designate targets. Unfortunately, that is a concept/strategy that inverts the capability limitations. Fighter aircraft radars (especially the current AESA radars) are more discerning and capable with respect to range to the target than the missiles are, and the target processing capability of the datalink networks amplifies that difference in capability. It is the missile carrier who needs to be close to the adversary in order for that missile to be effective. It is the missile carrier that needs to be able to fly higher and faster so as to impart more energy at launch, and thus increase the Pk against a stealthy or maneuvering target. It is like having a tactic in baseball where you're concerned the pitcher is going to get hit by a line drive, so you put him out in center field to protect him. How fast is Nolan Ryan's fastball over the plate when thrown from 300' away vs 60 feet away? Certainly newer missiles like the AIM-260 and even the larger-engine variants of the AIM-120 increase employment range or increase capability against maneuvering targets at the same range as legacy AMRAAMs, but that still doesn't change that the radar is more capable range-wise than the missile. I certainly doesn't mean that in a future landscape of sensor and weapon capabilities won't find a home for the "missile truck" concept. But, such a role or mission does not exist in the current battlespace and hasn't existed in combat airpower up to this point in history. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/12/2024 3:34:44 AM EDT
[#36]
 Reminds me of this lol. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/12/2024 5:33:54 AM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By castlebravo84: Probably not much unless we get very lucky with secondary effects and PLAN damage control proves to be just as shit the Russian navy's. What an SM-6 could do is knock out the combat systems of an escorting DDG and open the way for maritime strike tomahawks, quicksink bombs, ect. I have seen ASuW effects of an SM6, it is pretty impressive. It’s not so much the warhead but instead all the velocity it hits with. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/12/2024 6:16:44 AM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By MudEagle: ARFCOM GD combat airpower. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/470117/OIG3-1_jpg-3238387.JPG
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/12/2024 6:24:49 AM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By MudEagle: Nah, it isn't that. It is that the "missile truck" concept is something that doesn't fit with the current capability state of sensors and missiles. Its core idea is that the lesser-capable (lesser sensors, lesser speed/maneuveravility, lesser stealthiness) "truck" is sitting far away from the threat range of adversary missiles, and the stealthy aircraft with the good sensors can be safely closer to the adversaries and designate targets. Unfortunately, that is a concept/strategy that inverts the capability limitations. Fighter aircraft radars (especially the current AESA radars) are more discerning and capable with respect to range to the target than the missiles are, and the target processing capability of the datalink networks amplifies that difference in capability. It is the missile carrier who needs to be close to the adversary in order for that missile to be effective. It is the missile carrier that needs to be able to fly higher and faster so as to impart more energy at launch, and thus increase the Pk against a stealthy or maneuvering target. It is like having a tactic in baseball where you're concerned the pitcher is going to get hit by a line drive, so you put him out in center field to protect him. How fast is Nolan Ryan's fastball over the plate when thrown from 300' away vs 60 feet away? Certainly newer missiles like the AIM-260 and even the larger-engine variants of the AIM-120 increase employment range or increase capability against maneuvering targets at the same range as legacy AMRAAMs, but that still doesn't change that the radar is more capable range-wise than the missile. I certainly doesn't mean that in a future landscape of sensor and weapon capabilities won't find a home for the "missile truck" concept. But, such a role or mission does not exist in the current battlespace and hasn't existed in combat airpower up to this point in history. But I guess thats probably not supersonic at 60k either. An SM6 would provide that reach advantage for sure. The navy is getting all kinds of creative, patriot on burkes now standards on hornets... |
|
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 6/12/2024 6:29:32 AM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By 7empest: Why are we trying to escalate with China? the globalists sure want ww3 to keep Trump out. Having an under 300 ship US Navy is a disaster. Not having a large fleet of bombers able to deploy a large amount of naval mines which are stockpiled in adequate numbers or advanced antiship missiles is a disaster. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/12/2024 6:36:47 AM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By MudEagle: Nah, it isn't that. It is that the "missile truck" concept is something that doesn't fit with the current capability state of sensors and missiles. Its core idea is that the lesser-capable (lesser sensors, lesser speed/maneuveravility, lesser stealthiness) "truck" is sitting far away from the threat range of adversary missiles, and the stealthy aircraft with the good sensors can be safely closer to the adversaries and designate targets. Unfortunately, that is a concept/strategy that inverts the capability limitations. Fighter aircraft radars (especially the current AESA radars) are more discerning and capable with respect to range to the target than the missiles are, and the target processing capability of the datalink networks amplifies that difference in capability. It is the missile carrier who needs to be close to the adversary in order for that missile to be effective. It is the missile carrier that needs to be able to fly higher and faster so as to impart more energy at launch, and thus increase the Pk against a stealthy or maneuvering target. It is like having a tactic in baseball where you're concerned the pitcher is going to get hit by a line drive, so you put him out in center field to protect him. How fast is Nolan Ryan's fastball over the plate when thrown from 300' away vs 60 feet away? Certainly newer missiles like the AIM-260 and even the larger-engine variants of the AIM-120 increase employment range or increase capability against maneuvering targets at the same range as legacy AMRAAMs, but that still doesn't change that the radar is more capable range-wise than the missile. I certainly doesn't mean that in a future landscape of sensor and weapon capabilities won't find a home for the "missile truck" concept. But, such a role or mission does not exist in the current battlespace and hasn't existed in combat airpower up to this point in history. That makes a hell of a lot of sense, thanks for taking the time to explain it. I love learning stuff from you guys that tear holes in the sky for real.  |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/12/2024 7:05:05 AM EDT
[#42]
Boost phase intercept?
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/12/2024 7:13:47 AM EDT
[#43]
Why is this pissing off the Chinese?
Do they just expect us to do things the Chinese way - sit around on our collective asses waiting for the opportunity to steal someone else's tech? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/12/2024 7:16:07 AM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By feetpiece: With that kind of weight savings an MQ-9 could carry 2. MQ-20 is a better choice. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/12/2024 7:24:00 AM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By xd341: An SM6 would provide that reach advantage for sure. Remember that what the Hornet was pictured carrying in the OP's article is the SM6 without the booster. So, the big question is, what does the range and capability look like with that version of the missile launched at speed and at altitude? Certainly a very interesting idea that I wish I knew more about the capes of. |
|
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 6/12/2024 7:25:39 AM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Airborne11B: Not when the SM3 exists and is a perfectly able option for LEO stuff. Nothing is hitting GEO outside of dedicated space launch vehicles. As for this, that’s hot. F-35s loiter and provide guidance, Super bugs are missile trucks just like the F-15EX will be. The whole “bomb truck” idea has come and gone a few times. A bomber following along with a shitload of SM6s that could be guided by F-35s does seem comforting, though. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/12/2024 7:26:46 AM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By disco_jon75: MQ-20 is a better choice. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By disco_jon75: Originally Posted By feetpiece: With that kind of weight savings an MQ-9 could carry 2. MQ-20 is a better choice. A happy place to launch an AAM is supersonic and in/above 30K, which gives you the type of range and capability against a maneuvering target to be competitive against the AA-12/PL-12. Neither of those vehicles is going to be able to do that. |
|
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 6/12/2024 7:31:30 AM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By feetpiece: With that kind of weight savings an MQ-9 could carry 2. That’s a valid point |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/12/2024 7:32:38 AM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By MudEagle: Remember that what the Hornet was pictured carrying in the OP's article is the SM6 without the booster. So, the big question is, what does the range and capability look like with that version of the missile launched at speed and at altitude? Certainly a very interesting idea that I wish I knew more about the capes of. You'd know better than I, speed and altitude at time of launch must add to the range pretty significantly, but I take your point. Must take a lot of solid fuel to get a surface launched sm6 flying vertically. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/12/2024 8:35:28 AM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By castlebravo84: The 3300lbs figure includes the ~1500lb Mk72 booster, so this air launched version will be significantly lighter, and might not have any extra range over the two stage VLS version our DDGs shoot. Of course, being able to fly a Super Hornet out hundreds of miles from the fleet and then shoot the missile gives it considerable reach. massive refueling operations? |
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
Attached File
