Changing the Calculus

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.
 
 
 
______________________________

 
[1]https://www.19fortyfive.com/2025/05/aim-174b-is-navys-new-air-launched-missile-a-hypersonic-killer/

Goodbye Poseidon and Hawkeye

It’s been reported that China is developing and has test fired a very long range, hypersonic air-to-air missile (VLRAAM) intended to destroy large, high value U.S. targets like the P-8 Poseidon and E-2 Hawkeye/E-3 Sentry.  According to Popular Science website (1), the missile’s characteristics are,

Length:  19 ft

Diameter:  13 in

Range:  300 miles

Speed:  Mach 6

Guidance:  AESA radar with backup IR/EO

Cruise Altitude:  19 miles

The missile has been photographed mounted on a J-16 during testing and reportedly uses a high altitude glide profile to achieve very long ranges. 

VLRAAM on J-16

Reportedly, the Russians have a similar missile, the R-37 (AA-13 Arrow) which is around 14 ft long, 15 inch diameter and has a range of around 200+ miles using a high altitude glide profile. (3)  It is deployed on MiG-31BM Foxhounds and, possibly, Su-35s.  Guidance is both semi-active and active radar homing.  The missile has a 132 lb fragmentation warhead.  It may have entered production in 2014. (2)

R-37 Missile

By comparison, the U.S. AMRAAM AIM-120D has a range of 90 miles.

For long range shots, the missile reportedly is launched at high altitude and climbs even higher to around 100,000 ft where it “glides” for much of the way to the target.

As we’ve noted on many occasions, range is a very misleading attribute.  Without accurate targeting the longest ranged missile in the world is useless.  This is why the “carrier killer” ballistic missile is such a hollow threat.  In this case, however, the U.S. aircraft may provide the Chinese with all the targeting they need.  An E-2 Hawkeye or AWACS has to radiate in order to do its job and, in effect, provides a massive “shoot me” beacon for the enemy.  This was acceptable in the past since no enemy had an air-to-air (A2A) missile with sufficient range to reach the Hawkeye/AWACS which typically operated well back from the active combat area.  Now, however, with missiles that can reach 200-300 miles, “well back” isn’t even remotely far enough back.  Of course, we can pull our radar aircraft even further back but that’s a mission kill, isn’t it?

The U.S. counts heavily on AWACS as a force multiplier in aerial combat.  Our individual fighters can remain passive and undetected while the AWACS/E-2 direct them.  If we can no longer count on this advantage then aerial combat becomes just a ‘who’s got the best fighter’ contest and the Russians and Chinese are steadily closing that gap thanks to the mediocre F-35 basket that the West has placed all their eggs in.

Consider some of the tactical implications of this (see, "Stealth Air To Air Combat Story").  A carrier group used to be able to count on nearly omniscient awareness for hundreds of miles around the group thanks to the E-2 Hawkeye.  If the Hawkeye is rendered a mission kill, or a real kill, the carrier group’s situational awareness advantage disappears and may, in fact, default to the enemy with a multitude of surface, subsurface, and aerial sensors operating in their “home” water and air space.

Since shooting down an incoming, hypersonic A2A missile cruising at 100,000 ft seems unlikely, we need to come up with other counters and alternatives. 

A purely passive sensor system would be ideal.  Such technology exists in the form of EO/IR (IRST) but the range is far too short to functionally replace the couple of hundred mile Hawkeye/AWACS radar range.

A stealthy and fast version of the Hawkeye/AWACS would allow the aircraft to shut down its radar upon detection of an incoming missile and stealthily and rapidly leave the target area but the aerodynamics of a large radome argue against effective stealth or speed though, perhaps, enough could be achieved to increase survival chances.  Regardless, this again equates to a mission kill.

Another alternative would be to distribute the AWACS function to a multitude (swarm?) of drones.  The logistics of hosting, launching, and coordinating such a continuous and revolving cast of drones would be daunting (UAV carrier?).  Even more challenging would be assembling the individual data streams from each drone into a single, coherent, comprehensive picture.  Even this would only be part of the function.  The E-2/3 act as battle management nodes and this function would also have to be duplicated.  Still, the idea is conceptually feasible.

The P-3/8 Orion/Poseidon that the Navy is counting so heavily on for broad area maritime surveillance will be a sitting duck against these kind of hypersonic, long range missiles.  This is one of many reasons that ComNavOps has been highly critical of Navy surveillance and targeting plans.

Frankly, this is a threat that the US has no ready counter for.

____________________________________

(1)Popular Science website, “China is testing a new long-range, air-to-air missile that could thwart U.S. plans for air warfare”, Jeffrey Lin & P.W. Singer, 22-Nov-2016,

https://www.popsci.com/china-new-long-range-air-to-air-missile

(2)Military Today website,

http://www.military-today.com/missiles/r37.htm

(3)Wikipedia, “R-37 (missile)”,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R-37_(missile)