Comments by "verdebusterAP" (@verdebusterAP) on "" video.

  1. The selection of the SM-6 to become AIM-174B is geared combat enemy missiles than aircraft. The concept is that F-18E/F with AIM-174B backed by E-2D would be able to engage targets long before they become a threat to the fleet Effectively increasing the range of the Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC) The question now is if the USAF will adopt it for the F-15EX if the AIM-174B retains the 140lbs warhead, its far more lethal to enemy targets than AIM-120 and AIM-260 and USAF may consider to deal with long range Tu-160s attacks
    13
  2. Its very likely but the US number system is weird like that
    8
  3. The AIM-174 job is extending the range of the fleets defenses against missile threats
    6
  4.  @Whiskey11Gaming  No the Super Hornet is proving why it was the better choice The F-14 had little growth while F-18 still has plenty
    4
  5.  @orestes1984  The AIM-174 was first seen 3 years ago carried by VX Super Hornet for initial testing and trials It was seen again by carried last year by another VX Super Hornet The USN confirmed the VFA-2 and VFA-192 carrying Initial Operating Capability (IOC) with AIM-174B during RIMPAC As I stated before The goal of the AIM-174 is countering Russian Zircon and Kinzhal as well as Chinese DF-21 and DF-26 the SM-6 range is 250 miles A Mach 10 weapon like Kinzhal and DF-21 covers that distance in 2 mins With F-18 carrying the AIM-120D is only effective against the launching aircraft not the missile With the AIM-174, its effective against both but most importantly, you can push the enemy back as far as 600 miles Giving yourself nearly 5 mins of reaction time So yes its very real
    4
  6.  @高橋澄一  The AIM-120 has actually combat experience hence why its the best selling BVR missile in the West. Ukraine will likely get EU Meteor and French MICA with their F-16s simply to get actually combat usage. A western WVR or BVR missile bagging a Russian aircraft will a massive boost for which every weapon does and even worst if its MIG-31 or Su-35 that gets shot down
    3
  7.  @JENKEM1000  The AIM-174 goal is Kinzhal, Zircon and DF-21/26 weapons
    2
  8.  @Whiskey11Gaming  The F-18 was the better choice, its that simple By the time the F-15 entered service, the USAF was already working on the F-15C The USN problem which ultimately doomed the F-14 was clutter Carrier decks were littered with F-4 still as well A-6, A-7, RA-4/5/8, EA-3B. EA-6 and KA-6 Simple put kiddo There USN had so much clutter on the deck, they were never able to focus clearly The F-15 got a massive boost during the Gulf while the F-14 get coffin nails Those coffins why none of the upgrade programs were considered then of course there was the famous incident where 2 F-18s loaded with both guided by E-2 downed 2 MIGs , dropped on target and returned to ship validating the F-18s design Had the F-14 performance been the same or better during Gulf it would have had the support it needed
    2
  9. This was just the USN dusting off the AGM-78s and AIM-97 and modernizing it The goal of the AIM-174 is countering Russian Zircon and Kinzhal as well as Chinese DF-21 and DF-26 F-18s carrying 2 missiles backed by E-2D is lethal combo against missile threats I would wager that the USN likely looking to improve both the F-35 and F-18 radars to able to self target those targets
    2
  10.  @johnsilver9338  its more cost effective than both because the USN can simply add it to the existing SM-6 buy The USAF may buy the LREW or LRAAM for the F-15EX
    2
  11.  @orestes1984  Used regularly I would say yes The red sea crisis is literally the perfect testing spot for right now Both SM-6 and SM-3 have performed as expected so far
    2
  12.  @高橋澄一  No, the AIM-120 has over a dozen confirmed kills whereas the PL-15 is all paper
    2
  13. The point of the AIM-174 to counter enemy missiles at longer ranges more effectively than previous missiles
    1
  14.  @deansmits006  Lets EA-18Gs for starters The F-18 was designed from the start to use to air to ground. Even with all the changes, the F-14 still couldnt use the same amount of weapons as the F-18
    1
  15.  @philsalvatore3902  it is
    1
  16.  @trumanhw  AIM-174 doesnt weigh 3300lbs The complete SM-6 package weight 3300lbs however the AIM-174 lacks the MK-72 booster which weighs 1500lbs alone so the AIM-174 only weighs 1800lbs Secondly AIM-174 job is giving the USN the ability to defeat Chinese DF-21/26s as well Russian Kinzhal and Zircon weapons The AIM-174 retains the SM-6s 140lbs warhead which unlike AIM-120 or AIM-260, the AIM-174 is usable against all airborne threats including hypersonic missiles The USN problem is defending its ships from hypersonic weapons. While the SM-6 block II and GPI are slated to give them that capability, they are still limited in range Adding an AIM-174 allows USN aircraft to engage threats long before they reach the fleet The concept is using Command and Control Battle Management Communications (C2BMC) as external sensors to engage threats at long range. The Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC) with E-2D at medium range and SPY1/6 at short range So instead of seconds, they have minutes The AIM-260 job is expanding the AIM-120 capabilities with longer range , better and improved seeker against low rcs targets as well use of newer technology while retain the AIM-120s size.
    1
  17.  @philsalvatore3902  The AIM-174 in the images show a weight of 1863 marked on the side The pylon used can easily carry 3300lbs but the AIM-174 isnt that heavy
    1
  18. The F-14 and AIM-54 was never validated by the USN hence why it was scrapped
    1
  19.  @johnsilver9338  According to specs The SM-6 mass is 3300lbs The MK-72 booster weighs 1540lbs which means the SM-6 weights between 1700-1800lbs
    1
  20.  @okisoba  No, the F-14 and AIM-54 purpose was downing enemy aircraft and missiles at long range. It never achieved that with the USN. The F-14 achieved kills with the AIM-9 but never with the AIM-7 or AIM-54. The F-15 by contract used AIM-9s, AIM-7s as well the M61 in various engagements repeatedly By the time the F-15 entered service, the USAF was already working on the F-15C The USN problem which ultimately doomed the F-14 was clutter Carrier decks were littered with F-4 still as well A-6, A-7, RA-4/5/8, EA-3B. EA-6 and KA-6 Simply put There USN had so much clutter on the deck, they were never able to focus clearly on one platform The F-15 got a massive boost during the Gulf in a the form of a lot kills while the F-14 sat on the side lines then of course there was the famous incident where 2 F-18s loaded with bombs was guided by E-2 downed 2 MIGs , dropped on target and returned to ship validating the F-18s design Had the F-14 performance been the same or better during Gulf it would have had the support it needed for more upgrades. That and yes the end of the Cold war was it for the F-14
    1
  21.  @okisoba  Being actually used combat very different. Strategic assets are meant for strategic missions not conventional , different scale The F-14 performance in Iran-Iraq was due the fact that Iraqi aircraft lacked MAWS and RWRs. Lack of both those allowed the F-14/AWG-9/AIM-54 combo to be used with deadly effects. When Iraq got Mirages with MAWS and RWRs , the combo effectiveness dropped off substantially but the damage had been done The F-14 got no kills with the AIM-7, the only incident with the AIM-7 was a soft kill where the aircraft hit but still made back to base The AIM-120 wasnt operational during the Gulf war. All kills were AIM-7s or AIM-9s, BVR wasnt restrictive, the F-14 didnt have proper IFF equipment for BVR hence why it was sidelined nor the AIM-54 fail because they were not armed. Prior to take off, the safety pin is removed and weapon fuze switched to armed. The Fire Control system would tell the pilot if the weapons were not armed while still on the ground. Capability is everything
    1
  22.  @okisoba  The shot down was AIM-9Ls not AIM-7s. a kill is kill. The Israeli's had F-4s but against MIGs, the F-4 didnt far well whereas the F-15 performed exceptional well and why its still Israel's favorite. The 1999 was post Gulf War not during and those failures were likely AIM-120A or B models As for the AIM-54 not ignite, that was common for missiles at that time Unlike the AIM-9, AIM-7 and AIM-120 The AIM-54 was not widely produced nor wide used
    1
  23.  @okisoba  The simple fact is that AIM-7 despite upgrades as well notoriously unreliable. The limited run and use of the AIM-54 again what doomed it The AIM-174 differs because the USN needs it badly The F-18 with 2 AIM--174s can destroy threats before they become a threat to the fleet While the CEC is E-2D as sensor and F-18/F-35s as shooters I would wager that USN is looking at upgrades to their radars so they can engage hypersonic threats without the need for E-2Ds
    1
  24.  @okisoba  Only instance with F-14 and AIM-7 kill is questionable due unreliable of the AIM-7s at the time
    1
  25.  @okisoba  Incorrect While the AIM-7M entered service in 1982 , there was no guarantee that was the missile used by the USN as its common to exhaust older stocks and use newer missile as needed basics. So yes during the Gulf war and later, it was likely AIM-7Ms but prior to , it was likely AIM-7F on do According to estimates, The AIM-7E/F production was 15,000 to 25,000 missiles while the AIM-7M was just 5000 The AIM-7M lower production was likely due to the newer AIM-120 so yes during combat , the AIM-7M was choice but for normal peace time, it was AIM-7E/F
    1