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

[Heatloss]

Range is more than sufficient in the age of stealth, now more is better.

That's a curious statement given the probable role of the 15EX.

Moving up in diameter 1" only serves to ruin the benefit of a wingless design

Also a curious statement given PL-17.

JATM is not 174. I'm very aware of that. I don't see it as a flex. Everyone I've spoken to who knows better than I seems to see it as a fleet defense asset. JATM is clearly a tactical missile (it's in the name!) rather than something with a more specialized role.

 

[Shusui]

That's a curious statement given the probable role of the 15EX.

What of it? What is the point of replying like that if you won't speak plainly?

Also a curious statement given PL-17.

China operates much larger aircraft that initially are designed to carry 9-10 inch diameter missiles such as the R-27R/ER.

JATM is not 174. I'm very aware of that. I don't see it as a flex. Everyone I've spoken to who knows better than I seems to see it as a fleet defense asset. JATM is clearly a tactical missile (it's in the name!) rather than something with a more specialized role.

Right... and it is serving complement to the AMRAAM on standard fighters. The difference is that when you have the option of one or two Meteors in the F-35 or up to six JATM, the JATM looks to be quite a bit more favorable.

You ask why not an 8" diameter missile... why 8 when you can go 13.5" such as on the AIM-174? Who knows what size LREW will be? These things are already being worked on. They saw the need for an AMRAAM replacement in AMRAAM form factor and that is what we get with JATM. Discussion of the benefits of a slightly larger diameter missile should be had in threads focused on such projects.

 

[quellish]

That's a curious statement given the probable role of the 15EX.

At this time the F-15EX has no relation to the AIM-260. The F-22 and F-18 will carry the AIM-260, the F-15 will not.

 

[Heatloss]

Right... and it is serving complement to the AMRAAM on standard fighters. The difference is that when you have the option of one or two Meteors in the F-35 or up to six JATM, the JATM looks to be quite a bit more favorable.

You ask why not an 8" diameter missile... why 8 when you can go 13.5" such as on the AIM-174? Who knows what size LREW will be? These things are already being worked on. They saw the need for an AMRAAM replacement in AMRAAM form factor and that is what we get with JATM. Discussion of the benefits of a slightly larger diameter missile should be had in threads focused on such projects.

The difference between 7" and 8" is significant. That's 30% greater volume, and 10" is over double 7" volume. You don't need to jump to extremes to have notable benefits. Square cube law is a beautiful thing. I don't see any reason to move this discussion until JATM is revealed publicly.

And it's four meteors, not two.

https://www.mbda-systems.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/JSF-Data-Sheet_Layout-1.pdf

 

[quellish]

until JATM is revealed publicly

JATM is a public program.

 

[Heatloss]

JATM is a public program.

So do you have publicly available images of it from the DoD or explanations of its size and characteristics? You know what I mean when I say "publicly revealed."

 

[Heatloss]

Sorry if I seem a bit terse. I'm very tired and someone who tends to be skeptical of almost everything I see on forums related to modern equipment. I know I get things wrong, but I've seen so many incorrect stories that I default to skepticism.

 

[quellish]

So do you have publicly available images of it from the DoD or explanations of its size and characteristics?

Sure do, and most of that information is in this thread.

You know what I mean when I say "publicly revealed."

I do not, can you elaborate?

 

[Heatloss]

I do not, can you elaborate?

I don't really want to. I have little stake in this and I'd rather circle back to this topic in some time.

 

[Shusui]

I don't really want to. I have little stake in this and I'd rather circle back to this topic in some time.

Would that not just mean you're spamming? I don't see the point of making a comment every other reply just for the sake of saying "I'm skeptical" as if you're some entity that must be convinced before someone elses take is valid.

 

[Heatloss]

Would that not just mean you're spamming? I don't see the point of making a comment every other reply just for the sake of saying "I'm skeptical" as if you're some entity that must be convinced before someone elses take is valid.

I was planning on engaging more and I decided against it after a few messages. I apologize for taking up your time and would appreciate not being called a spammer.

 

[Josh_TN]

JATM has already been stated as being the same form factor as AIM-120. I doubt it has a wider diameter. Expanding to even 8” might add 30% more volume in a seemingly negligible way but it also will add a similar amount of mass with all the repercussions of that. I suspect there are rather low mass limits for rail launchers in a number of aircraft, up to and including the CCAs, and as such I would not expect AIM-260 to deviate much from AMRAAM.

ETA: Wider, long range AAMs are a separate capability generally intended for use against large high value targets with low maneuverability.

 

[kqcke for you]

JATM has already been stated as being the same form factor as AIM-120. I doubt it has a wider diameter. Expanding to even 8” might add 30% more volume in a seemingly negligible way but it also will add a similar amount of mass with all the repercussions of that. I suspect their are rather low mass limits for rail launchers in a number of aircraft, up to and including the CCAs, and as such I would not expect AIM-260 to deviate much from AMRAAM.

Would be interresting how mutch drag it adds compared to the existing design and AMRAAM. Afterall you may get more volume but it doenst matter if the downside balance it out. Then only the larger seeker would be an advantage.