This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Engineering, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of engineering on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EngineeringWikipedia:WikiProject EngineeringTemplate:WikiProject EngineeringEngineering
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
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
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
US guided missies are all numbered in a single sequence and 160 is already used by the ADM-160 Miniature Air-launched Decoy (MALD). Also, there are no other mentions of AIM-160 as a designation for SACM in any of the references cited for this article. The title should be changed accordingly. 108.28.7.36 (talk) 15:52, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Tagging article creator, TheRandomResearcher (thank you, by the way, for creating missile lofting; I have been meaning to get around to that, particularly after I wrote the AIM-174 article) for engagement.
The sources seem pretty thin on the ground for the AIM-160, unfortunately. They seem particularly thin, however, for the "CUDA" designation. First off, the original provenance seems to be a random slide taken from a presentation over a decade ago, and it was "Cuda" vice "CUDA." Even Global Security admits that "CUDA" is presented as an acronym but there is no known expansion (they go so far as to speculate that it may be a contraction of "barracuda…" which might make sense given the AN/ASQ-239 'Barracuda,' but, OR, and all that.
I think mentioning "CUDA/Cuda" in the body is okay, but I don't think the sources support it in the title, especially after the "SACM" designation. As the anonymous editor above this post pointed-out, I also find it odd that the U.S. would re-use the -160 designation when we already have the ADM-160… but again, OR. (I have a growing suspicion that the Long-Range Engagement Weapon will turn-out to have been the AIM-174, but I could be wrong, and I digress).
As you can see on the LM brochure : [1] CUDA is a trade mark [2] filed on 2011-08-03; Registration Number 4659896. Whether it has something to do with the barracuda fish is unclear. Most similar trade mark arts suggest that, but this has nothing to do with it. Maybe someone can dig deeper here. Also notice the cancellation date 2021-07-30 is still being in progress.
I, too, question the "AIM-160" designation.
As for the Long-Range Engagement Weapon it's a complete different design by requirement. Imho its diameter size could only be between 10" and 11.8" so the Standard family of missiles like the AIM-174 is very unlikely a solution. The AIM-152 AAAM would be a more likely contender for the airframe. Ultimately, these are outdated designs as hypersonic, airbreathing and other technologies will be used. Mightyname (talk) 21:33, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see little support for the AIM-160 designation among sources.
![[1]](https://alternathistory.ru/files/users/user3015/Cuda-LM-DSCN0157v2c2000.jpg){kind=link}