You’ve probably heard, by now, about the Navy’s AIM-174B
air-to-air missile. It’s a Standard SM-6
surface to air missile adapted to be air launched from F-18 Hornets. The key characteristic of this missile, in
this role, is its 200-300 mile range.
There is no exact published spec on the range, yet, but the ship
launched version has a range of 150 – 290 miles, depending on the flight
profile. Various reports suggest that
the air launched range is 300+ miles.
Other performance characteristics of note include a weight
of around 1,900 pounds, a length of more than 15 feet, a speed of up to Mach
3.5, and an impressive 140-pound blast-fragmentation warhead. In comparison,
the Sidewinder has a 20 lb warhead and the AMRAAM has a 44 lb warhead.
Of course, this performance comes at a staggering cost of
$4.3M per missile.[1]
 |
| AIM-174B |
This missile is intended to be the very long range air to
air missile (VLRAAM) that’s been missing from the inventory and is an answer to
the very long range Chinese and Russian air to air missiles. The Chinese have the PL-15 which is reported
to have a range of 120-190 miles and a speed of Mach 5, the PL-17 which is
reported to have a range of 250-310 miles and a speed of Mach 6, and the PL-21
which has a reported range of 190+ miles.
The Russians have the AA-13 (R-37) Arrow which has a reported range of
up to 250 miles and a speed of Mach 6. A
similar, though shorter ranged US missile is the AIM-260, currently under development. It is reported to have a range of 120 miles
and a speed of Mach 5.
This category of very long range, very fast missile is a
severe problem for high value units such as tankers and E-2 Hawkeyes. We’ve discussed the impact of this missile
and noted that it could force our Hawkeyes, in particular, to operate so far
back from the aerial battle as to lose awareness and control which is, of
course, the doctrinal key to US aerial combat.
This would, for example, cede aerial supremacy to the Chinese over
Taiwan in the event of an invasion. Our
carrier aircraft would be unable to operate effectively in the area with each
aircraft forced to operate independently instead of with the benefit of an
all-seeing controller. It would also
force each aircraft to radiate instead of remaining emissions silent and
allowing the E-2 to detect and designate targets. The negative impact of Chinese very long
range air to air missiles (VLRAAM) cannot be overstated.
Targeting
This is, as always, the crucial and limiting factor. A 300+ mile missile is useless if we can’t
generate targeting at that range. No
fighter radar is going to see modern enemy fighters at anything approaching
that range and certainly not enemy stealth fighters. My best semi-informed guess is that a fighter
won’t see an enemy stealth fighter until 20 miles or less.
In a match up between the Navy’s F-18, the only plane
currently designated to carry the AIM-174B, and an enemy stealth fighter, the
enemy is going to get first detection every time.
A large radar plane (AWACS or E-2 Hawkeye) might be able to
see enemy fighters at somewhat longer ranges but, still, nothing approaching
300+ miles. So, where do we get
targeting for these missiles? There are
a few viable options.
- The F-35 (or the occasional F-22 from Guam?) might have the
stealth to get close enough to provide targeting against HVUs (though not enemy
stealth fighters). HVUs are not stealthy
and are relatively easily detected. Note:
this is one reason I’ve called for stealthy ‘Hawkeyes’, possibly based on the
B-21 (see, “B-21 Hawkeye”), to thwart enemy
attacks against our HVUs.
- A B-2/21 equipped with passive sensors could be used to
provide targeting although it is questionable whether it would be worth the
risk.
- Taiwan ground assets might well be able to provide targeting,
particularly using passive EO and IR sensors.
It would be almost impossible for the Chinese to completely eliminate
this kind of small, non-radiating, hard to find asset.
The reverse case of the Chinese providing targeting for
their VLRAAMs is interesting. They would
have their own stealth aircraft to provide targeting, land based over- the-horizon
radars, and suicide aircraft. The latter
is concerning. The Chinese do not have
the same view of the value of the individual pilot that we do and the idea of
sending throwaway fighter aircraft on semi-suicide runs straight at our HVUs,
either to shoot them directly or to provide targeting for remote VLRAAM
shooters, is viable and concerning. From
the Chinese perspective, if they can trade a handful of second tier fighters to
kill a US HVU, that would be a win for them.
The Russians essentially had this as the cornerstone of their
anti-carrier strategy during the Cold War.
They were doctrinally willing to sacrifice many Tu-95 Bear search
aircraft to provide detection and targeting for their naval aviation bomber regiments.
Taiwan Scenario
The problem with any contemplation of a Taiwan-centered war
with China is that it presents a massive advantage for China due to physical
proximity. The skies over Taiwan can
safely be assumed to be packed with Chinese aircraft and only occasionally
challenged by US sorties from Guam, if it remains operational or carrier
aircraft. The advantage becomes all the
greater for Chinese aviation through their uncontested use of AEW and EW
aircraft supporting the aerial fight from a safe distance. Until now, we simply didn’t have a VLRAAM of
our own to threaten Chinese AEW and EW aircraft.
Conversely, Chinese VLRAAM missiles would be used to push US
AEW, EW, and tanker aircraft back, thereby relinquishing control of the air
battle.
For many decades, US military operations have assumed aerial
supremacy. Chinese VLRAAMs have upended
that assumption. Now, however, the
AIM-174B offers the ability to regain control of the aerial battle or, at
least, force an even contest (which is not how you want to fight but it’s
better than fighting from a disadvantaged position!).
Summary
The AIM-174B VLRAAM offers the possibility of establishing
aerial supremacy (or, at least, equality) in the Taiwan scenario. The key, as always, is targeting. As usual, the US military has focused on the
weapon and ignored the sensor/targeting issue.
We should be working just as hard at solving the targeting issue.
We also need to be working on tactics for the Taiwan
scenario and I guarantee that we have not addressed this in any realistic
fashion. We need to figure out how best
to deploy the AIM-174B and how best to take advantage of the opportunities it
creates. Will this allow our F-18s to
fight with a reasonable chance of success or is the F-18 simply outclassed by
Chinese aircraft? Are there tactics that
can make the F-18 effective? This, by
the way, is why I’ve repeatedly called for a new, very long range, stealthy,
air supremacy carrier fighter and end this idiotic combination strike-fighter
nonsense that produces an aircraft that is neither a good strike asset nor a
good fighter.
We can win the Taiwan aerial battle but it means focusing on
what’s important and letting go of our paradigms. We need new approaches, new tactics, and new
aircraft optimized for the Chinese war.
The AIM-174B is one piece of the puzzle but we can’t stop there, as we
are almost certain to do. We need to
develop the accompanying tactics and fighter aircraft that will take advantage
of the AIM-174B. And no, we can’t simply
stand off and lob these missiles into the skies over Taiwan. The missiles are far too expensive, complex,
and time-consuming to produce to ever have that kind of inventory.
We’ve taken the first step.
Now, we need to finish the job.
______________________________
