Talk:RIM-174 Standard ERAM

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Aviation This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Military history: Aviation / Maritime / Technology / Weaponry / North America / United States This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Military aviation task force Maritime warfare task force Military science, technology, and theory task force Weaponry task force North American military history task force United States military history task force

The SM-6 has been designated RIM-174. I will try to confirm this from a second source.--Two way time (talk) 02:05, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please verify, quote a source to prove Australia is involved in development of this missile, and will buy this missile. 74.214.44.131 (talk) 13:43, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://breakingdefense.com/2015/08/pit-lrasm-against-tomahawk-for-anti-ship-missile-vadm-aucoin/?sf11722332=1

Is the proposed ship attack mode notable yet? Hcobb (talk) 23:05, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's no specific information in this article regarding the fastest anti-ship missiles that the RIM-174 Standard ERAM is capable of taking out. Can it take out the fastest supersonic anti-ship missiles or hypersonic missiles? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.146.53.89 (talk) 22:14, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately the answer to this would require the great secrets to the universe. It probably depends on how fast the fuze can react? Theoretically the intercept speed of any missile is functionally unlimited; as long as the missile's sensor can successfully cue its intercept or the DDG can cue the detonation. You are after all just aiming where the missile will be. RADONVALKYRIE (talk) 01:00, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 list of shipwrecks in 2016 and SM-6 say that it was sunk by a new variant of the SM-6 missile.  BUT the section USS Reuben James (FFG-57)#Final disposition says that the SM-6 test successfully hit and significantly damaged the James, but did NOT sink it.  That section claims it took significant further actions by other means (including the use of scuttling charges installed before the test began)  I found no references that justify this claim, so I do not know the real story here.
 All three pages (USS Reuben James, SM-6, and shipwrecks of 2016) site the same reference, but it is advertising the success of the missile test and does not specifically say the missile sank the ship.

2600:8801:8500:EC8:8D86:3408:9796:D6FD (talk) 01:48, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In April, 2021, the USS John Finn performed an over-the-horizon (OTH) missile launch of an SM-6 without using its active sensors. link — MrDolomite • Talk 00:50, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Army intends to use the SM-6 for its SMRF program. I'm attempting to create a draft here: User:AN0M4L1Y/Strategic Mid-Range Fires AN0M4L1Y (talk) 00:12, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I have created an AIM-174 article. It is currently under-review.

Draft:AIM-174 air-to-air missile

I, personally, believe this warrants its own article. I suspect the AIM-174 will become quite important to the USN's arsenal in the coming years.

Anyways, figured I'd drop it here in case anyone is so-inclined to assist in improving/adding-to the article/before anyone spends a significant amount of time adding to this (the SM-6) article

Cheers MWFwiki (talk) 19:19, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree that it's eventually going to be needed, but I'm not certain that we're going to have enough material to support an independent article for another year or two. As currently written, the draft is basically a lot of "we don't know yet, but here's what the SM-6 can do". The infobox is a picture of an SM-6 with a text explanation of what's different, instead of a picture of an AIM-174. Seems a little premature. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 20:28, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, it is a fully-operational missile, according to the USN. Further information may become available anytime now. The draft is written the way it is because that is what the sources report. Reporting unknown facts is no different than reporting known facts, IMO MWFwiki (talk) 20:39, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Whether it's fully-operational or not is not really relevant to whether the article can independently stand on it's own. The question is whether it has enough content specific to the AIM-174B that's independent of the baseline SM-6/RIM-174 article, to justify maintaining it separately, and the fact is that there just isn't that much verifiable information from reliable sources about it. "Unknown facts" are not actually facts, they're speculation, and even when speculation comes from reliable sources we have to be careful with it and it has to be evaluated for whether it's undue weight. For instance, the Naval News speculation that it was developed under a SAP should probably not be included -- they list essentially no basis for why that would be the case other than "the JATM is under one"; and the author is a high school student with no actual real world or academic experience in the military or missile defense field. In this particular context, I'm not sure Carter Johnston's speculation constitutes a reliable source compared to well-cited academics in the field like Jeff Lewis or Masao Dahlgren. It's just not ripe for it's own article yet, at least in it's current state. That's likely to change over the next 1-2 years as it's now operationally deployed, but there's a lag time until that happens where we can't really do anything until there's actually public information about it. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 23:45, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NN sources can be swapped-out for something more reliable, they're all saying the same things. The AIM-260, AIM-160, LREW, and at least one or two other (similar) missiles all have their own articles. They are all shorter than the current 174 article. Of those three, none are even operational. I would say the precedent is established already. That being said, I do appreciate you pointing-out NN's highly-questionable choice of writers... absolutely bizarre. You'd think they'd simply let AI write things before allowing a high schooler do it... very, very strange MWFwiki (talk) 00:10, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The difference with those other missiles is that they are original platforms, not variants. The more appropriate precedent would be AIM-120 AMRAAM with SLAMRAAM (basically this exact situation upside-down -- variant going from AAM to AGM instead of from SAM to AAM). From 2002 through 2011, all content about ground-launched AMRAAM and SLAMRAAM existed on the main AIM-120 AMRAAM page alone (and there was surface-launched AMRAAM content there since at least 2005). From 2011-2016, SLAMRAAM was a redirect to the AIM-120 AMRAAM page, when that content was split off it had more substantive information to go off of. Until that information evolved sufficiently to split it's own article, we kept it in the more centralized source. I'm not saying AIM-174 doesn't deserve it's own page, to be very clear, but I'm not convinced that there's enough there at the moment that's actually independent of the parent article to justify it yet. Look at it this way: I can summarize all the unique things to that article in the following couple of sentences: "The missile is the "Air Launched Configuration" of SM-6, and has been given the designation of AIM-174B. It is the first dedicated long range AAM since the Phoenix. While it is in operational service, little is known about it, and it has only been observed on Super Hornets thus far. According to the Navy it has a 130nm range. It lacks the SM-6's booster, but benefits from being launched at speed and altitude. Everything else, including the majority of the infobox, is substantively just content from the SM-6 article, or reporting on speculation (which brings WP:CRYSTALBALL and WP:UNDUE concerns.) That's why IMO it'd be more useful to readers for now centralized in this article, instead of trying to maintain two articles simultaneously, the majority of which content overlaps.⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 01:21, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely understand; Despite thousands of edits, this is actually my first-ever article submission. Appreciate your input :) MWFwiki (talk) 04:33, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]