Lockheed Martin AIM-260 Joint Advanced Tactical Missile (JATM)

sferrin said:
I suspect you have a lot better idea where to look for crumbs than I do. I'll have to wait. *shrugs*
Click to expand...

If you wait for the government to feed you you will starve… at least until the next election year.

The AIM-260 , as far as I have been able to tell, is not considered sight sensitive. The configuration itself is not classified though some externally visible components (antennas) are sensitive but not classified.

There are photos in another thread that show an aircraft that recently been configured for separation testing that are very interesting.
 
quellish said:
That does not seem to be the case here. For example, two companies that have done similar work at Hill in the past were actively looking for other work at the time but did not bid on this project for some reason.

The contract, W9123821C0019, was awarded in 2021 to "NVE - HHI JV"
Click to expand...
Odd. There must have been some reason they didn't bid...
 
quellish said:
If you wait for the government to feed you you will starve… at least until the next election year.

The AIM-260 , as far as I have been able to tell, is not considered sight sensitive. The configuration itself is not classified though some externally visible components (antennas) are sensitive but not classified.

There are photos in another thread that show an aircraft that recently been configured for separation testing that are very interesting.
Click to expand...
Is it, "very interesting" because there are only two ejectors instead of the normal three, which could indicate a a wider (possibly not circular) missile? Or is it the giant plume "skidmark" you don't generally see with AIM-120? Saw this somewhere else. While it was interesting it doesn't really tell us what the missile looks like. Just evidence that something (could even be something not the AIM-260) has been tested.

GF5-UdFb0AAgB09 - close up.jpg

GF5-UdFb0AAgB09.jpg
 
Interesting find sferrin, so does that mean that the AIM-260 is even larger than the AIM-120? Certainly looks that way from the photo that only shows four launchers in the weapons bays, down from the usual six when the AIM-120 is being carried.
 
I had not noticed this. I would guess that AIM 260 has a significantly larger diameter then, which makes me wonder how it will carry over to F-35.
 
I'm not so convinced that really is indicative of anything related to the size of the weapon. The outer launchers are just as constrained to outer perimeter of the bay as they are to all three when all three are fitted. So if JATM is large enough to restrict to 2 launchers vs 3 then these outer launchers would have to come inboard to provide adequate clearance to the outer perimeter of the bay. Thing is, there isn't a rail system in the bay just fixed hard points for the launchers so I do not think there is a practical way of moving the launchers. Plus I am not sure that the USAF wants to give up magazine depth for extended ranges. FWIW...
 
Maybe its like shusui said. Also F-22 has one in the middle a bit moved to the front.
I would guess that because of the rectangle shape the control surfaces may hit each other as f-22 is tight.That doesnt mean IT IS so large that F-35 would carry less. main-qimg-b48a99e499c87bc4bc527b20cb7314c4-lq.jpeg Screenshot 2023-02-21 015503 (3).png 1688431739640.png
 
Last edited:
Interesting kqcke for you, I did not know that the F-22 has one missile moved forward slightly so in theory the F-22 could carry six AIM-260s in the weapons bays after all.
 
It looks like it is going to be the next generation missile for the NGAD and F/A-XX. Replacing the AMRAAM.
 
I'd add that the missing launcher could and I stress COULD be unrelated to the size and or shape of the missile, such as it may have been removed to allow room to inspect or observe the loading of a missile, it may be to make room for a camera system to record a launch/drop. And it could have been that the launcher was pulled for maintenance and had yet to be reinstalled. Just saying to keep an open mind. The other bay looks to have only one launcher mounted on the outboard position for whatever reason
 
The catapult launcher is removed to make place for the new tested launch system. It's more logical that them testing the new missile in an off center poaition.
The fact that both catapults stand in place give you a converging information about the size of the missile.
It means also that this is not a kicker but something else (otherwise they would simply have adapted the existing one).

The fact that you have soot marks would suggest that the tested missile is fired before separating from the launcher, something like under a trapeze or tube launched.
Obviously it can be also a landyard activated launch but I am pretty sure nobody have used that since the Genie. ;)
 
Again I think we need to keep an open mind about this, we don't know what test flight number this is, it could be 1 or 2 in which testing on the center mount make more sense or it could the 20th and now they are testing the interaction of the center bay wall and/or the airflow of the bay door, which would be why the out and inboard launchers are used. This is one image of one flight that we know very little about. This is like paleontology, looking at dinosaur fossils and trying to decide what noise they made. I will add that in place of the center launcher there is an orange plate or box that is not in the other bay and may be a camera or telemetry mount
 
I’m fascinated by the age old question will the weapon drive ConOps/tactics or is ConOps/tactics driving design.

Pacific theater - >range - reduced magazine - +CCA?
 
We will just have to wait and see what happens with the tactics that the USAF/US Navy will use once the AIM-260 reaches service.
 
bobbymike said:
I’m fascinated by the age old question will the weapon drive ConOps/tactics or is ConOps/tactics driving design.

Pacific theater - >range - reduced magazine - +CCA?
Click to expand...
CONOPS is supposed to drive your R&D, but the weapons you have now drive your tactics.

Example: AIMVAL and the high off-boresight IR guided AAMs. Navy wanted some AAMs that they could stick onto an attack plane and shoot at someone chasing them. These HOBS AAMs would also make older planes more capable in a dogfight.
 
The number of Vertical Ejector Launchers (VEL) fitted during a test doesn't necessarily represent the nominal capacity. Special recording/calibration devices (in red) sometimes take up some space in a bay, or even an entire bay.
Even during demo flights, F-22s are regularly seen missing some launchers.
 

Attachments

  • 6754613683_7df4192e1e_b.jpg
    6754613683_7df4192e1e_b.jpg
    177.3 KB · Views: 61
  • 15149173629_0842c039be_b.jpg
    15149173629_0842c039be_b.jpg
    169.9 KB · Views: 62
  • 4-22-1-25-11-5-30m.jpg
    4-22-1-25-11-5-30m.jpg
    39.3 KB · Views: 71
  • 422ndtest_16.jpg
    422ndtest_16.jpg
    87 KB · Views: 77
  • avf22_09.jpg
    avf22_09.jpg
    66.7 KB · Views: 78
  • xnwknc73wfv71.jpg
    xnwknc73wfv71.jpg
    198.8 KB · Views: 67
Last edited:
Assuming that report is accurate, I think the "hexagonal shapes" are likely antennas. If it's extremely long ranged as speculated, decoupling the launch and targeting platforms would be a very useful capability. I'm thinking either high altitude sensor platform (RQ-180 or the like) or perhaps spaced based for targeting? What are the chances there's some laser based data link capability?
 
I don't think we can draw any conclusions on missile size or carriage capacity based on a missing launcher on one of 411th FLTS/422 TES test Raptors. That said, the other pictures showing missing launchers is mainly because of a mixed air-to-air and strike loadout; two inboard launchers can be replaced with a bomb rack, and one loadout is 4x AMRAAM, 4x SDB, 2x Sidewinders, in which case only bay would have SDBs and hence the asymmetric look.
 
what_is_that said:
Assuming that report is accurate, I think the "hexagonal shapes" are likely antennas. If it's extremely long ranged as speculated, decoupling the launch and targeting platforms would be a very useful capability. I'm thinking either high altitude sensor platform (RQ-180 or the like) or perhaps spaced based for targeting? What are the chances there's some laser based data link capability?
Click to expand...
What report?
 
what_is_that said:
Assuming that report is accurate, I think the "hexagonal shapes" are likely antennas. If it's extremely long ranged as speculated, decoupling the launch and targeting platforms would be a very useful capability. I'm thinking either high altitude sensor platform (RQ-180 or the like) or perhaps spaced based for targeting? What are the chances there's some laser based data link capability?
Click to expand...

It seems unlikely to me. There would be no need for such an elaborate data link arrangement, and if it is side mounted it clearly is not for guidance. My first thought was some kind of divert system with a weird non circular cover, although that also seems unlikely for a missile in this size. It could just be a paint job, for whatever reason. And of course we're going off one anecdotal reporting.

JATM will have to break cover eventually, though since the threshold aircraft is F-22 and the next platform is likely F-35, it could be quite some time.
 
NMaude said:
They could certainly have a Phoenix-class AAM with the air-launched version of the SM-6 especially if it's fitted with a launch-booster.
Click to expand...
SM6 is about thrice the weight of a Phoenix, the 13.5" version is 3300lbs!

And I'm oddly amused by the idea of the Block 1Bs getting used as air-launched hypersonics.
 
NMaude said:
That's with the Mk-72 booster attached, the SM-6 is somewhat lighter without the Mk-72 booster attached
Click to expand...
Still at least twice the weight of a Phoenix without the Mk72 booster involved.


NMaude said:
SM-6 Block 1B?
Click to expand...
Yes, the 21" version that apparently the Army is wanting for their Mid range hate&discontent (along with Tomahawks)
 
Btw 40 years ago airforce made AAAM（AIM135） to replace AIM54.
Maybe AIM260 is that thing return？
 
trajan said:
Btw 40 years ago airforce made AAAM（AIM135） to replace AIM54.
Maybe AIM260 is that thing return？
Click to expand...

AAAM was AIM-152 and it was strictly a Navy project, not Air Force.

There never was an AIM-135; ASM-135 was the ASAT (anti satellite) missile launched from the F-15.

I can't see any reason JATM would be a resurrection of a 40 year old missile. Technology has moved on and I don't think either version of AAAM would be built in the same way now.
 
TomS said:
AAAM was AIM-152 and it was strictly a Navy project, not Air Force.

There never was an AIM-135; ASM-135 was the ASAT (anti satellite) missile launched from the F-15.

I can't see any reason JATM would be a resurrection of a 40 year old missile. Technology has moved on and I don't think either version of AAAM would be built in the same way now.
Click to expand...
I can see AIM-260 having the same form factor as the GD/Westinghouse missile, but everything else would be different, from the rocket engines to the warhead, to the electronics. Only thing it would have in common would be a superficial exterior look.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom