（1）260mm is gross underestimation. I won't try guessing narrow object from photos, but t is very clearly thicker than R-27E engine section (260). 300? maybe, but again, it's unreliable.
（2）It's a self-defeating point in any case: Weight by itself isn't a merit; capability is. And the lesser cross section, the less, by a lot, is drag, the less is dependency on launch conditions (H0).
PL-17 should be made really, really, really wrong to match AIM-174. Tbf, i would go a step further, and place a doubt(?) marker if AIM-174 with its SAM heritage will really be much better than piggy the 810 (Su-57 VLRAAM).
It is indeed. And AIM-174 is absolutely a SAM at its core. There is one main solid reason to cut a2a missile length: it's geometry considerations while under aircraft (ground clearance during take off/landing runs; fitting missiles in tandem).
And AIM-174 is a masterpiece here: it's long enough to not fit anywhere in superior numbers, yet it is absolutely large enough to be a problem and not fit under any conformal or internal points anywhere.
It's a offspring of a very capable missile, and mil twitter really tried to rally around it. But ffs, it's really second coming of Iranian Hawk under F-14. Absolute desperate measure, created because USN right now faces very credible threat, yet its aircraft fleet intercept specs are on a level unseen since late 1950s. I.e. they're that bad.
For 2 decades USN pretended, that aim-120c is intercept missile, but largely that was result of no one even daring to target US carriers.
