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

Last edited:
Also, looking at the Net Explosive Weights it's unclear what they mean. Fairly sure the AIM-120C3 warhead is not 118lb.

Aha:
Guided Missiles - the net weight of the explosive in the warhead plus 25 percent of the propellant weight of the motor.
Click to expand...

So even with no warhead, a guided missile would still have a NEW (Net Explosive Weight).
 
Last edited:
This seems to be the appropriate thread for this Sandbox video concerning future US AAMs.


If all goes according to plan, these new weapons will provide the U.S. with the edge it needs to maintain air supremacy throughout the better part of the 21st century, creating yet another inflection point in the timeline of air warfare, and reshaping the way nations fight in the skies around greater ranges, higher speeds, and more onboard computing power than any weapons in history. Time may not pick favorites, but Uncle Sam sure does — so let's talk about the latest air-launched weapons making their way toward his war room.
Click to expand...

If this isn't the appropriate thread then please let me know which is the right thread and I'll repost it there after deleting it here.
 
Last edited:
AIM-260 was originally slated for IOC in 2022. The last mention of the JATM was in May 2023 when airforce brass said that AMRAAM production increase was due to the war in Ukraine, not due to an issue with JATM. I'm surprised we haven't seen an announcement yet that AIM-260 has achieved IOC.
 
I believe 2022 ioc was the media mixing stuff upand reporting it in error. 2022 was to be the was production start date. Of course it's likely that has slipped by now.
 
what_is_that said:
www.airandspaceforces.com

Raytheon: AMRAAM, JATM ‘Complementary’ in Future Force Mix

The Air Force should use the JATM dogfight missile as a complement to the AMRAAM, a Raytheon executive said.
www.airandspaceforces.com www.airandspaceforces.com
Click to expand...

That article synopsis is NOT what the article itself says. It talks about JATM as the "kick in the door" missile, which does not equate with dogfighting. The article suggests that JATM at IOC will still slightly outrange the most advanced versions of AMRAAM, but Raytheon thinks the USAF should keep buying AMRAAM (shocked face) as a less expensive "capacity" missile.
 
TomS said:
That article synopsis is NOT what the article itself says. It talks about JATM as the "kick in the door" missile, which does not equate with dogfighting. The article suggests that JATM at IOC will still slightly outrange the most advanced versions of AMRAAM, but Raytheon thinks the USAF should keep buying AMRAAM (shocked face) as a less expensive "capacity" missile.
Click to expand...
I honestly agree with Raytheon on this one.

JATMs are silver bullets, only spend them when you have to. AMRAAMs are good enough for most of the work.

Got that fight with the J-20 and J-35 kicking off? Sure, let's use JATMs. But if we're just beating on J10s or Su27s, AMRAAMs will do the job.
 
Scott Kenny said:
I honestly agree with Raytheon on this one.

JATMs are silver bullets, only spend them when you have to. AMRAAMs are good enough for most of the work.

Got that fight with the J-20 and J-35 kicking off? Sure, let's use JATMs. But if we're just beating on J10s or Su27s, AMRAAMs will do the job.
Click to expand...
Agree. Pretty common in Europe for fighters to fly with different ranged BVR AAMs and the US having a similar mix would not be out of place. Use the best weapon for the target, not the most expensive weapon for the target.
 
Once the AIM-260A is fully operational given its current level of classification the AIM-120 would still stay in production for nations allied/aligned with the US who're not trustworthy enough to get the JATM.
 
NMaude said:
Once the AIM-260A is fully operational given its current level of classification the AIM-120 would still stay in production for nations allied/aligned with the US who're not trustworthy enough to get the JATM.
Click to expand...

AIM-120 production is to go full rate until 2029, at which point it is planned to end. But clearly it will likely be a decade or more before AIM-260 is purchased in the same numbers as AMRAAM.
 
No one knows with any degree of certainty when the AIm120 production will end. Though it most certainly not end by 2029. Probably mid 2030's is my guess.
 
FighterJock said:
So the two missiles will operate side by side before the AIM-120 is finally retired.
Click to expand...

Almost certainly, I can see the AIM-120 for example being produced and exported to less trustworthy US allies (Like in the past with AIM-9s of lesser capability than the AIM-9L/M for example).
 
Most industry rumors seem to indicate AIM-260 will be quite expensive. I can easily see aircraft carrying a mix of both, with the 260 being saved for higher performance targets or as the opening move. My guess is the seeker is dual mode as an ECCM capability along with a dual pulse motor. Basically a death sentence when fired in envelope. But costly.
 
Josh_TN said:
Most industry rumors seem to indicate AIM-260 will be quite expensive. I can easily see aircraft carrying a mix of both, with the 260 being saved for higher performance targets or as the opening move. My guess is the seeker is dual mode as an ECCM capability along with a dual pulse motor. Basically a death sentence when fired in envelope. But costly.
Click to expand...
Probably what makes the cost also is some new energetics for the propulsion system. The goals of Long Range, agile NEZ and compact form would rank high in the cost increase.
 
Training_Dummy said:
We still have Sidewinder after all this time; AMRAAM has made it this far so I would take the over on AMRAAM longevity. Unless of course CUDA or Peregrine can offer 75-80% of AMRAAM range in <1/2 the space and volume!
Click to expand...
Oh, absolutely! Once we get "halfRAAMs" packed into weapons bays I don't expect to see the full size AMRAAMs lingering around in US service.

But that also means the US would need to have all weapons-bay fighters, with NGAD and FAXX flying.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Oh, absolutely! Once we get "halfRAAMs" packed into weapons bays I don't expect to see the full size AMRAAMs lingering around in US service.

But that also means the US would need to have all weapons-bay fighters, with NGAD and FAXX flying.
Click to expand...
So, basically I expect to see AMRAAMs in service as long as the US still has some fighters flying with external carriage. Eagle IIs and F16Vs.

Once those are on their way out, HalfRAAMs will be the primary AAM bought by numbers.
 
AIM-120 will be in service through the 2030s. Every aircraft will be compatible with them, even the CCAs, and the U.S. has only ramped up its orders. So far USAF has shown no interest in halframs; instead its goal seems to be expanding the no escape zone.
 
Also depends on the 260 cost and performance compare to the 120.

If the 120 fills in a gap between the immortal 9 and the 260 it likely to stay. That gap can be in performance, cost, carry numbers or a dozen other reasons that likely need detail specs and a study to figure it all out.
 
Firefinder said:
Also depends on the 260 cost and performance compare to the 120.

If the 120 fills in a gap between the immortal 9 and the 260 it likely to stay. That gap can be in performance, cost, carry numbers or a dozen other reasons that likely need detail specs and a study to figure it all out.
Click to expand...

Indeed it has already been implied that 260 will be a bespoke high end weapon and that 120s will be the back filler. The manufacturer claims that the newest AMRAAMs have almost JATM range, which makes me think the latter has serious advantages (and expenses) in seeker and end game velocity.
 
My thinking too Josh_TN, in that case one question though? How many AIM-260s would the USAF order in that case?
 
No idea; the JATM is a black box. We know it is solid fueled and AIM-120 sized.
 
Honestly has anyone ever looked into how much you can shrink the 120s warhead and particularly the guidence parts for more motor space? And how much more power and burn time a new fuel can have?

Add in just however much spare room there is in the F22 bay so you can stretch it even more to go right up to the limits.

Like say you free up 8 inches of internal space and are able to add another 4 to an added foot to the motor instead so of the OG 4.5 [irc] foot long one it now a 6 footer. Have that uses better fuel, how much more performance can you eck out of the frame?

heck how much with it be an improvement with the old fuel?


Ill die of laughter if it turned out that the changes were all internals and we been seeing pictures of AIM260s but are duped into thinking they are 120s. It also fit with the name change and the cost cause using all new gear be expensive and have enough changes for a new model.
 
AIM-120 itself is a moving target with a lot of iterations. I think the two largest changes AIM-260 will bring are dual mode seeker, likely with an AESA radar/IIF, and dual pulse. And I suspect it’s appearance will be fairly obviously different.
 
Firefinder said:
Honestly has anyone ever looked into how much you can shrink the 120s warhead and particularly the guidence parts for more motor space? And how much more power and burn time a new fuel can have?
Click to expand...
If i remember it right it was exactly what happend with the AIM-120-C7. Well not exactly as it was a smaller guidance section but it still allowed for an larger motor (i remember something around 5,9-6 inches more space for the SRM).
 
kqcke for you said:
If i remember it right it was exactly what happend with the AIM-120-C7. Well not exactly as it was a smaller guidance section but it still allowed for an larger motor (i remember something around 5,9-6 inches more space for the SRM).
Click to expand...

IIRC for example the AIM-120C-5 had new control-fin servomotors that were considerably smaller than the original control-fin servomotors due to advances in servomotor technology since the original design had gone into production. This freed up 5" of space so that the rocket-motor could be increased in length without increasing the overall length of the missile.
 
There isn't any need to speculate, I already told you guys it is the same dimensions as the AMRAAM in length and diameter based on what I've seen. The change is that it lacks midbody wings. There are also accurate concept arts of the missile posted online;
1729838848751.png

Has a conventional style radome, seemingly a far more advanced target detection device (proximity fuse), and likely a dual pulse motor can be expected. The US has had a 7" dual pulse motor capable of production in AMRAAM sized packages since at least 2008 - 2012 timeframe when JDRADM project was still being worked. See page 6. ^

I think the idea of a thrust vectoring control section may have been scrapped but I didn't get to look at the rear end of it. Looked pretty standard to me though.
 
Last edited:
Shusui said:
There isn't any need to speculate, I already told you guys it is the same dimensions as the AMRAAM in length and diameter based on what I've seen. The change is that it lacks midbody wings. There are also accurate concept arts of the missile posted
Click to expand...

Yup. Not sure why these posts have been controversial.
 
Heatloss said:
I highly doubt we'll continue to use the 7" airframe. That's been a hassle forever. We've made it work but I feel an 8" or 10" would be far more useful while not inducing carriage complications.
Click to expand...
Range is more than sufficient in the age of stealth, now more is better. The pK on modern missiles is quite high. Having a larger diameter airframe is nothing but a drag. Pun intended.

Stuff like the AIM-174 exists as a flex and because it serves multiple roles that make the tradeoff for numbers a worthy one. Moving up in diameter 1" only serves to ruin the benefit of a wingless design and makes integration of the new missile much more difficult in the same space that was once occupied by the AMRAAM.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom