Navy F/A-18 Super Hornet Spotted Carrying New AIM-174B And AIM-260 Long-Range Missiles Together

The photograph shows one Navy F/A-18F carrying the AIM-174B and AIM-260 together. It is the first known publicly documented instance of both weapons appearing on the same aircraft. That matters because the Navy is testing two different tools for future air combat, rather than relying on one missile for every target.

The jet belonged to VX-31, a Navy test squadron based at China Lake, California. It also carried an IRST21 infrared search-and-track pod on its centerline station. The missiles had blue bands, showing they were inert and configured for captive carry, not live firing.

The flight may have supported weapons integration, handling, compatibility, or another evaluation activity. It does not prove that both missiles are operational together. It does show how a Super Hornet could combine extended-range weapons with passive sensing during ongoing testing.

The AIM-174B is based on the SM-6 missile family and gives the Navy an extended-range air-to-air weapon. Its size and reach make it especially relevant against high-value airborne assets, such as tankers and airborne early-warning and control aircraft. It is meant to threaten support platforms far from the main fight.

The AIM-260 is a next-generation beyond-visual-range missile. It is intended to improve on the widely used AIM-120 AMRAAM and counter sophisticated threats, including China’s PL-15. Unlike the larger AIM-174B, the AIM-260 is designed to keep a broadly similar form factor to the AIM-120.

That compact design supports both external carriage and internal carriage on aircraft such as the F-22 and F-35. The AIM-174B has already appeared in major exercises and reached some forward-deployed Navy squadrons. The AIM-260’s operational entry date remains unclear.

The article gives no official range for either missile. It says the AIM-174B should reach far beyond the AIM-120D AMRAAM, probably into the hundreds of miles. For the AIM-260, previous reporting cited a target of at least 120 miles, with potential to go considerably farther. These figures should not be treated as confirmed specifications.

In air combat, hundreds of miles means an aircraft could threaten important airborne support well before fighters entered visual range. A tanker or airborne early-warning aircraft might be forced to operate farther from contested airspace. That changes how much support it can provide and how long it can remain useful.

Range alone does not guarantee a successful engagement. Detection, identification, targeting data, missile guidance, electronic conditions, and the target’s maneuvers all matter. The article also notes that the AIM-174B’s classified range is probably much greater than the AIM-120D’s, without stating an exact comparison.

The Navy needs different missiles because airborne targets perform different jobs. Tankers extend fighters’ reach and time on station. Airborne early-warning and control aircraft provide surveillance and help coordinate engagements. Both are valuable even when they are not directly attacking enemy fighters.

The AIM-174B is suited to this support-target problem because its size and reach are designed for extended-range engagements. Threatening these aircraft can force an adversary to keep them farther away. The AIM-260 fills a different role as a next-generation beyond-visual-range weapon for increasingly sophisticated aerial threats and fighter engagements.

Together, the missiles give a Super Hornet more choices. A crew could consider the target’s distance, the target’s function, and the wider tactical situation. The article does not provide a fixed division of targets, but it presents the AIM-174B and AIM-260 as complementary rather than interchangeable weapons.

Opposing fighters often depend on support aircraft even when those aircraft stay behind the immediate battle. Tankers help fighters reach distant areas and remain there. Airborne early-warning and control aircraft support surveillance and engagement coordination. Moving those platforms away reduces their proximity to the force they support.

The article says extended-range threats can complicate an adversary’s ability to sustain fighter operations, maintain airborne surveillance, and coordinate engagements across domains. In the Indo-Pacific, this pressure matters especially because distances are vast and fighters may rely heavily on tankers to reach or remain over contested areas.

The result would not automatically be a defeated fighter force. It could mean longer routes, less time on station, weaker surveillance coverage, or more difficult coordination. The AIM-174B is intended to create that problem by threatening high-value support aircraft from extended distances, even when exact missile performance remains classified.

The IRST21 is an infrared search-and-track system. It passively detects and tracks airborne targets instead of relying exclusively on radar emissions. Its presence alongside both missiles suggests the test aircraft was examining not just weapons carriage, but also how sensing supports advanced air-combat operations.

Passive sensing matters when crews must manage electromagnetic emissions carefully. Radar transmits energy, which can reveal that an aircraft is operating and may help an opponent locate or classify it. An infrared system can contribute target information without making that same kind of radar transmission. The aircraft photographed carried the pod on its centerline station.

IRST does not automatically provide every piece of information needed for a long-range missile engagement. It can, however, add to a broader sensor picture and help detect targets discreetly. The article notes that Block II IRST21 sensors entered full-rate production contracting for Navy and Air National Guard fighter pods.

Beyond-visual-range missiles are launched before crews can see the target directly. In general, the launching aircraft first detects and identifies an aircraft using onboard sensors or information from other platforms. It then uses that information to decide whether a launch is appropriate and sends the missile toward the target’s predicted position.

During flight, a missile can use onboard guidance and, where supported, updates from the launching aircraft or other networked sensors. Radar can provide detailed tracking but emits signals that may reveal the shooter. Passive infrared tracking, such as the IRST21 described in the article, can add target information without relying exclusively on radar emissions.

No single sensor solves every problem. The article specifically warns that IRST does not automatically provide all information needed for a long-range engagement. Data links, guidance, target updates, and careful electromagnetic management must work together. Their effectiveness depends on the tactical situation, target behavior, and the quality of available tracking data.