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

Shusui said:
Range is more than sufficient in the age of stealth, now more is better.
Click to expand...
That's a curious statement given the probable role of the 15EX.
Shusui said:
Moving up in diameter 1" only serves to ruin the benefit of a wingless design
Click to expand...
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.
 
Last edited:
Heatloss said:
That's a curious statement given the probable role of the 15EX.
Click to expand...
What of it? What is the point of replying like that if you won't speak plainly?


Heatloss said:
Also a curious statement given PL-17.
Click to expand...
China operates much larger aircraft that initially are designed to carry 9-10 inch diameter missiles such as the R-27R/ER.

Heatloss said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Heatloss said:
That's a curious statement given the probable role of the 15EX.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Shusui said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
Heatloss said:
I don't really want to. I have little stake in this and I'd rather circle back to this topic in some time. :)
Click to expand...
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.
 
Shusui said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
Josh_TN said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
So just one question remains? When will we finally get to see the AIM-260? Sometime soon I would think if it is entering production then serice shortly after.
 
If it is equipping F-18 units then presumably that will be the first reveal, since there is no internal carriage. It seems curious to me that the USAF is so secretive; that suggests just the look and shape of the weapon informs its capabilities.
 
Josh_TN said:
If it is equipping F-18 units then presumably that will be the first reveal, since there is no internal carriage. It seems curious to me that the USAF is so secretive; that suggests just the look and shape of the weapon informs its capabilities.
Click to expand...
It's not radically new or anything. Looks kinda like some of the early AMRAAM contenders.
1735844589131.png
 
That's what has been bothering me too sferrin since the first information about th AIM-260 first came out, but the AMRAAM was classified itself before the first production units were used in Desert Storm.
 
sferrin said:
Then why all the secrecy about it's configuration? I seem to recall at some point that they were building special bunkers for it to keep prying eyes away.
Click to expand...

The storage facility at Hill was delayed several years (no contractors wanted to do it). The storage facility was not intended to hide the configuration of the missile, it was intended to securely store the missiles (i.e. keep the avionics, etc. under lock and key).

There isn't much secrecy regarding the program.
 
quellish said:
The painting of the F-22 launching a missile is reasonably accurate and factual.
Click to expand...
quellish said:
The storage facility at Hill was delayed several years (no contractors wanted to do it). The storage facility was not intended to hide the configuration of the missile, it was intended to securely store the missiles (i.e. keep the avionics, etc. under lock and key).

There isn't much secrecy regarding the program.
Click to expand...
Why the lack of actual photos? AIM-120 had photos out there almost before they ever flew it.
 
sferrin said:
Why the lack of actual photos? AIM-120 had photos out there almost before they ever flew it.
Click to expand...

Because nobody is asking for them through appropriate means?

If the Air Force doesn't put out a press kit full of photos for every doodad they have in development or production that doesn't mean the doodads are "secretive".
 
quellish said:
Because nobody is asking for them through appropriate means?

If the Air Force doesn't put out a press kit full of photos for every doodad they have in development or production that doesn't mean the doodads are "secretive".
Click to expand...
Just seems strange that the usual places, AvWeek for example, haven't had any in their magazine.
 
sferrin said:
Just seems strange that the usual places, AvWeek for example, haven't had any in their magazine.
Click to expand...

It isn't the 1990s anymore. Back then journalists asked questions (and sometimes got answers) supported by their editors and organizations. Today news magazines are largely gone and the few journalistic organizations that are left are very different than they were. Aviation Week isn't going to go looking for photos of... whatever. They're not calling the Air Force for information, they are waiting for the Air Force to call them with a prepared statement.

As an example, the Air Force has released information on the RQ-170 when asked for it (and in contracts, RFPs, etc.). They have not put out a press kit with official photos - and they probably never will (unless a lot of people ask, and Congress has interest as well).

The Iranian government on the other hand was far more giving!
 
A selection of QF-16 JATM sorties. There are many more
 

Attachments

  • A-FY21 Monthly Summary Report-Oct 2020.pdf
    1.6 MB · Views: 50
  • E-FY19 Monthly Summary Report-Feb 2019.pdf
    1.3 MB · Views: 12
  • G-FY20 Monthly Summary Report-Apr 2020.pdf
    1.4 MB · Views: 6
  • H-FY20 Monthly Summary Report-May 2020.pdf
    1.5 MB · Views: 7
  • K-FY20 Monthly Summary Report-Aug 2020.pdf
    1.6 MB · Views: 6
  • L-FY20 Monthly Summary Report-Sept 2020.pdf
    1.6 MB · Views: 17
sferrin said:
Then why all the secrecy about its configuration? I seem to recall at some point that they were building special bunkers for it to keep prying eyes away.
Click to expand...

Quellish has an explanation upthread on this that seems very simple and plausible - the munition storage facilities were long in the tooth, inadequate and/or in need of reinvestment.
 
joshjosh said:
There was someone on this forum claiming to be a contractor who saw the JATM up close and sketched it out for us. No proof of veracity, though.
Click to expand...
That would be me, but I'm not a contractor.

quellish said:
I would strongly suggest re reading his posts in this thread.
Click to expand...
Shusui said:
Will be a mostly wingless based design, a tail controlled body lift missile to reduce drag (and continue to improve maneuverability). AESA seeker, pulsed motor. Improves on the performance of the AIM-120D and provides a improved platform to continue upgrading while having the ability to be mounted on just about anything that could fire the AMRAAM prior to it.
View attachment 702800
Click to expand...
 
bring_it_on said:
That was very similar to the artwork released by General Mark Kelly back in 2022.
Click to expand...

2008 JDRADM > "JATM" posted by ACC along with Sketch by @Shusui > AFRL Air Dominance technologies (circa 2009).

Heatloss said:
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.
Click to expand...
I suppose you could always grow in size and get better performance in some areas. But there are ways, that I'm sure you are aware of, of doing this without going down that path and ending up with a bulkier missile with integration challenges.

If the rumors and renderings appear to be close to what the actual design is then they have chosen a multi-pulse rocket motor coupled with a very low drag design that screams efficiency. I am also willing to bet that they've shrunk down the WH and guidance volume to allow for more propellant and ended up with a lighter missile overall. If its main purpose is to pop out of a internal bay of F-22 and NGAD then this seems to be the optimal approach.

With a more efficient air breathing VFDR propulsion something like the Meteor or DARPA T3 designs you incur a drag, size (compressed carriage) and weight penalty that would not be the case for the path chosen (last image is that of Meteor) which again points to the F-22 and its replacement (and Navy's FA-XX) as an influential force driving requirements.
 

Attachments

  • JDRADM_2008.png
    JDRADM_2008.png
    721.3 KB · Views: 87
  • JATM_ART.jpg
    JATM_ART.jpg
    62.3 KB · Views: 79
  • AFRL_MD_2009.png
    AFRL_MD_2009.png
    1.8 MB · Views: 75
  • Meteor.png
    Meteor.png
    2.4 MB · Views: 70
Last edited:
bring_it_on said:
I am also willing to bet that they've shrunk down the WH and guidance volume to allow for more propellant and ended up with a lighter missile overall. If its main purpose is to pop out of a internal bay of F-22 and NGAD then this seems to be the optimal approach.
Click to expand...
Basic reading on google seems to indicate that the move to AESA from a traditional mechanical scan method would greatly reduce both volume and weight of the system's guidance method. Somehow I'm convinced the enhanced target detection device is not going to be lighter than the previous model but perhaps that is a necessity as countermeasure systems are more advanced than ever.

Though a more advanced target detection device could better utilize a smaller warhead.
 
bring_it_on said:
I suppose you could always grow in size and get better performance in some areas. But there are ways, that I'm sure you are aware of, of doing this without going down that path and ending up with a bulkier missile with integration challenges.

If the rumors and renderings appear to be close to what the actual design is then they have chosen a multi-pulse rocket motor coupled with a very low drag design that screams efficiency. I am also willing to bet that they've shrunk down the WH and guidance volume to allow for more propellant and ended up with a lighter missile overall. If its main purpose is to pop out of a internal bay of F-22 and NGAD then this seems to be the optimal approach.

With a more efficient air breathing VFDR propulsion something like the Meteor or DARPA T3 designs you incur a drag, size (compressed carriage) and weight penalty that would not be the case for the path chosen (last image is that of Meteor) which again points to the F-22 and its replacement (and Navy's FA-XX) as an influential force driving requirements.
Click to expand...
I think I agree with most of what you say, but I still see no reason to assume that it's still a 7" airframe. Most of the bay limitations that I know of are fin diameter and length limited rather than airframe diameter. I remain unconvinced that they'd subject themselves to that again.
The move to all-boost AMRAAM motors was a way to optimize for range, and JATM has an emphasis on closing the PLAAF's AAM range gap.

Sure, we could make a super AMRAAM, but with almost no growth potential for better propulsion? Why? 8" plus VFDR plus multi-pulse should give us the ability to counter current and future threats pretty handily. And it's just one inch.

Depending on what they're doing, you could also use a final sustain pulse to provide endgame maneuverability in tandem with TVC, assuming smaller fins. A slight AARGM-ER shape can also provide body lift if they're experimenting with bank to turn. Both of these options could offset smaller fins if they went for an 8".
 
Heatloss said:
Sure, we could make a super AMRAAM, but with almost no growth potential for better propulsion? Why? 8" plus VFDR plus multi-pulse should give us the ability to counter current and future threats pretty handily. And it's just one inch.
Click to expand...
VFDR and multi Pulse isnt really possible / dont really go hand in Hand but an 7-8" solid Rocket engine with multi-pulse design and advanced propellent (maybe even something like those wired end burners) could give quite a big improvement for having more energy and using it more effectiv
 
Mass might be another consideration on top of volume. Not familiar with the various rail and drop launcher specs but I could easily see there being issues with a 30% mass increase. Also likely changes separation characteristics, making a more AIM-120 shape and mass more platform agnostic.
 
I think the AF did confirm that the JATM was AMRAAM size so we can probably rule out a substantially larger diameter though we'll have to wait to see if its exactly 7" or something different. If they've made significant progress in LE warheads, and shrinking guidance and other components you could be looking at a missile that's lighter than AMRAAM with a substantially higher propellant weight as a percent of overall missile mass than the AMRAAM (15-20% improvement?). All in, you could be looking at something like 40+ kg / 90 lbs lighter missile than a 7" VFDR Meteor or notional VFDR AMRAAM and 20-25 lbs lighter than current AIM-120D3.

Kinematically this is more than plenty for this class of weapon. The really interesting stuff is probably going to be under the hood and what future variants they'll evolve to.

Wasn't there some back and forth between Roper and LM on a a missile defense interceptor that LM backed out of because the AF wanted to do it as a fixed price contract? Wonder if it was related to JATM..
 
Last edited:
Remember that the AMRAAM was intended to be the same form factor as the Sparrow, and yet it ended up 1" smaller in diameter.

So I wouldn't be surprised if the AIM260 went back up to 8". Assuming equal density, that's a 30% mass increase but still only makes a ~460lb missile. Still lighter than Sparrow, and about equal in weight to Meteor.
 
Heatloss said:
The move to all-boost AMRAAM motors was a way to optimize for range, and JATM has an emphasis on closing the PLAAF's AAM range gap.
Click to expand...

The JATM uses a very different motor than the AMRAAM. I do not know if it is multi pulse but it can be throttled throughout its flight and it is not air breathing.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom