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

Throttle-able is interesting. Would you not be confusing that with the ability to choose when to use the second pulse?

From what little knowledge of multi pulse motors I have, no, this is something different. Rather than wait for the next segment it can throttle faster ie continuously.
 
Throttle-able is interesting. Would you not be confusing that with the ability to choose when to use the second pulse?
Almost certainly in this case, a series of pulses. "Dual pulse" doesn't strictly mean two pulses anymore. Just a series of smaller isolated pulses built into the motor, ignited whenever the algorithm decides it is best served. You can tailor the grains of each section for slower or faster burn rate. High burn boost- coast- long/slow burn(s)- coast- high burn terminal. Several ways to cook the cat.

I'm doubtful they tried a hybrid motor here because it's more difficult to fine tune and complicated -- and because no-one has mentioned a breakthrough in print. Theoretically, you could use an oxidizer of fluid or even gas to throttle into a chamber with the solid fuel, but there would be someone, somewhere talking about hybrid motor development out in the wild, even the talk wasn't linked to JATM. Given that this is more complicated to get burn rates right than a series of insulated sections, I don't see them going for it in a missile this size.
 
but it can be throttled throughout its flight and it is not air breathing.

If the AIM-260A's rocket-motor can be throttled and it isn't air-breathing then it's probably a hybrid rocket-motor (Using solid-fuel with a liquid oxidiser).
 
If the AIM-260A's rocket-motor can be throttled and it isn't air-breathing then it's probably a hybrid rocket-motor (Using solid-fuel with a liquid oxidiser).

It is some kind of pure storable solid. Any hybrid would have special handling etc needs.

Maybe using carbon motor case is lighter than Kevlar as in AMRAAM and that increases performance?
 
Maybe relevant.

The Air Superiority Capability
Area is pursuing a number
of technologies that may
be incorporated into new
weapons systems. Recent
technology development
efforts include: advanced
adaptable warhead
technology to defeat smaller,
highly-agile air targets, and selected ground-based air
defense targets; Guidance Integrated Fuzing (GIF) to
provide improved target detection and characterization;
Hybrid AeroFin / Reaction Jet Control (RJC) technology
to improve missile airframe agility; and advanced
propulsion technology focusing on improved energy
management to increase range. The integration of
the advanced propulsion and guidance and control
system technologies would expand missile operational
envelope, enabling full-spherical, minimum-time
intercept capability against extremely agile air targets
both within and beyond visual range.
 

Attachments

  • RW-air-superiority.pdf
    1.6 MB · Views: 22
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".
The question is extent of use.
AMRAAM size iirc was closely tied to f-16 acm limitations.
 
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.
Wow, how they managed that is probably the classified bit. Liquid propellant?
 
Last edited:
The question is extent of use.
AMRAAM size iirc was closely tied to f-16 acm limitations.
The US still has a lot of AIM120s in inventory, we could easily save a few for Super Hornet and Falcon wingtips, if the AIM260 really is a 4-500lb beast.
 
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.

Interesting; I did not realize throttling solid rocket motors were a thing yet. I know DARPA has a project for it for ground use; forgot the name of the project.



ETA: it was Operational Fires
 
Last edited:
What it may be is an ESP motor with multi pulse. In theory thanks to the ESP (Electric solid propellants) it could be either ignited and stopped (i think throttling is also possible) but just having the ability to control and restart an individuell pulse if not multiple at the same time gives the ability to throttle it (in theory atleast)
 
Elaborate please. Or did you mean KE?

Lethality Enhanced, which usually translates into some form of tailored or directional fragmentation. The best known implementation is in PAC-3, which is notionally hit-to-kill but has a small explosive Lethality Enhancer that creates a burst of fragments just before impact to improve effectiveness vs. air-breathing targets.
 
From what little knowledge of multi pulse motors I have, no, this is something different. Rather than wait for the next segment it can throttle faster ie continuously.
Sounds like a hybrid motor. (Or maybe they have something like embedded metallics that can be selectively heated to affect burn rate?)
 
What it may be is an ESP motor with multi pulse. In theory thanks to the ESP (Electric solid propellants) it could be either ignited and stopped (i think throttling is also possible) but just having the ability to control and restart an individuell pulse if not multiple at the same time gives the ability to throttle it (in theory atleast)
A PDF about ESP for example:
 
Startups require funding and need to get on contract with DOD programs to accelerate both funding and growth. Valley Tech has subsequently been acquired and is now part of Lockheed's Next Generation Interceptor industry team.
 
Startups require funding and need to get on contract with DOD programs to accelerate both funding and growth. Valley Tech has subsequently been acquired and is now part of Lockheed's Next Generation Interceptor industry team.
I wish they'd have given this presentation behind closed doors. We seem uniquely incompetent when it comes to keeping secret stuff secret.
 
I wish they'd have given this presentation behind closed doors. We seem uniquely incompetent when it comes to keeping secret stuff secret.

But we are really good at keeping EVERYTHING ELSE secret!

So good we have not-secret secrets (“controlled unclassified information”)
 
Interesting; I did not realize throttling solid rocket motors were a thing yet. I know DARPA has a project for it for ground use; forgot the name of the project.



ETA: it was Operational Fires
The SRMs on the Space Shuttle were able to be throttled.
 
The SRMs on the Space Shuttle were able to be throttled.

They weren't throttled, the thrust varied over time due to the geometry of the propellant grain as it burned. While it is technically possible to throttle an SRM it's mechanically complex typically using some sort of moveable nozzle-plug.
 
They weren't throttled, the thrust varied over time due to the geometry of the propellant grain as it burned. While it is technically possible to throttle an SRM it's mechanically complex typically using some sort of moveable nozzle-plug.
I understand the grain configuration calcs, I did enough of them. I hadn't realized that's what they were talking about. My reference source obviously got it wrong then. Thanks for the clarification.
 
The question is extent of use.
AMRAAM size iirc was closely tied to f-16 acm limitations.
JATM is and isn't an AMRAAM replacement. From what I know I assume all platforms will continue to operate AMRAAMs to varying extents and the US will continue to buy them.
 
USAF and USN had plans to end AIM-120 procurement later this decade. Some of those would now change given depleted inventories and limited JATM production and initial platforms, but the plan would be to transition fully to JATM over time - it being a replacement for the AMRAAM.
 
USAF and USN had plans to end AIM-120 procurement later this decade. Some of those would now change given depleted inventories and limited JATM production and initial platforms, but the plan would be to transition fully to JATM over time - it being a replacement for the AMRAAM.
Correct. The way I understand it is that D-3 is JATM-enough to be useful against most threats, and is and will continue to be cheaper than JATM for some time. It's a good way to pad magazine depth in this <$1T budget reality
 
The way I understand it is that D-3 is JATM-enough to be useful against most threats, and is and will continue to be cheaper than JATM for some time.

If D3 is "JATM" enough, why are we pursuing the JATM at all then? Seems like a huge waste of money. I would also like to know more to determine how accurate that claim is. Can you share details?
 
If D3 is "JATM" enough, why are we pursuing the JATM at all then? Seems like a huge waste of money. I would also like to know more to determine how accurate that claim is. Can you share details?
https://theaviationist.com/2024/09/12/aim-120d-amraam-complementary-to-aim-260-jatm/ This is what I've seen.

Up to you what to make of that.
 
https://theaviationist.com/2024/09/12/aim-120d-amraam-complementary-to-aim-260-jatm/ This is what I've seen.

Up to you what to make of that.
It's a Raytheon rep. If Raytheon is building JATM they would not promote their older product and make unnecessary competition (just as how Lockheed sacrificed F-22 for F-35).
 
https://theaviationist.com/2024/09/12/aim-120d-amraam-complementary-to-aim-260-jatm/ This is what I've seen.

Up to you what to make of that.

I also once heard a Boeing rep tell me that the F/A-18 E/F with a 'stealth pod' and CFT is just as good/good-enough stealth as F-35 but without the need of maintain the LO coatings and materials.

Which is why I think there's something to D-3 being good enough for some platforms or applications.

Substitute D-3 with C5 and the same can still be true depending on the threat, platform and mission. Clearly the AF had a firm set of requirements for its future 'AMRAAM replacement'. AIM-260A is that weapon, and Lockheed won a competitive contract. Its the future. Raytheon competed and lost out. They have and will have work to keep the AMRAAM upgraded and on future weapons some of those are probably quietly being matured.
 
I also once heard a Boeing rep tell me that the F/A-18 E/F with a 'stealth pod' and CFT is just as good stealth as F-35 but without the need of maintain the LO coatings and materials.



Substitute D-3 with C5 and the same can still be true. Clearly the AF had a firm set of requirements for its future 'AMRAAM replacement'. AIM-260A is that weapon, and Lockheed won a competitive contract. Raytheon competed and lost out.
For some reason I had it in my head that Raytheon was doing both. That explains the issue there.
 
It's a Raytheon rep. If Raytheon is building JATM they would not promote their older product and make unnecessary competition (just as how Lockheed sacrificed F-22 for F-35).
In all honesty, their words seem extremely specifically phrased. They aren't saying D3 is as good as JATM or is JATM, but that D3 now meets some of the minimum threshold requirements for the JATM program. I think AMRAAM (especially D3) will continue to make up a decent bit of the inventory the USAF/USN keep around for if major things happen while they work to build out inventories of AIM-260A.
 
Overall, this goes into a topic that I find interesting. Whenever the PL-15 is brought up and how the USAF was in a situation where it lost it's edge, people always go to the range discussion. I find it interesting because if the USAF was solely interested in closing the range gap (as some phrase it), then making use of the space freed up from shrinking electronics when going from AIM-120C7 to D3 would have made the most sense (immediately that is). Instead the USAF went the long route and went with an entirely new missile, probably because they were after more than just range.


It's also interesting to see the AIM-174A, which budget documents seem to indicated likely kicked off in or arOund 2018. But still took quite sometime to reach a point where they had a few hundred missiles (as has been confirmed to me). I wonder if the USAF looked at adapting something like the AMRAAM-ER (with ESSM motor) and decided it would have taken just as long as fielding a new missile.
 
Overall, this goes into a topic that I find interesting. Whenever the PL-15 is brought up and how the USAF was in a situation where it lost it's edge, people always go to the range discussion. I find it interesting because if the USAF was solely interested in closing the range gap (as some phrase it), then making use of the space freed up from shrinking electronics when going from AIM-120C7 to D3 would have made the most sense (immediately that is). Instead the USAF went the long route and went with an entirely new missile, probably because they were after more than just range.


It's also interesting to see the AIM-174A, which budget documents seem to indicated likely kicked off in or arOund 2018. But still took quite sometime to reach a point where they had a few hundred missiles (as has been confirmed to me). I wonder if the USAF looked at adapting something like the AMRAAM-ER (with ESSM motor) and decided it would have taken just as long as fielding a new missile.
AMRAAM-ER would create length issues for most airframes. It'd be doable, in theory, but may require new pylons and might be otherwise sketchy.
 
AIM-174A poses the same problems for USN platforms but is fielded. But both do address the immediate goal of closing the range gap using any missiles at the USAF/USN's disposal while you workout something purpose-built. As for AMRAAM-ER dimensions, I found this in another thread here:

"AMRAAM ER is 30.48 cm longer than an AMRAAM. The ER variant is 396.2 cm long, 17.7 cm diameter, and weighs 278.9 kg. AMRAAM is 368.3 cm long, 17.7 cm diameter, and weighs 158.7 kg.

The addition of the ESSM rocket adds 25.4 cm to the ER version's length. The back-end is mated to the AMRAAM missile using an adapter ring, High said.

A single circuit card assembly translates commands from AMRAAM and sends them back to the ESSM fins which control the missile, he added."

This is still within F-35 internal bay capabilities as the longest missile it can carry is 160 inches / 406 cm (AARGM-ER).
 
"AMRAAM ER is 30.48 cm longer than an AMRAAM. The ER variant is 396.2 cm long, 17.7 cm diameter, and weighs 278.9 kg. AMRAAM is 368.3 cm long, 17.7 cm diameter, and weighs 158.7 kg.

The addition of the ESSM rocket adds 25.4 cm to the ER version's length. The back-end is mated to the AMRAAM missile using an adapter ring, High said.
1736048083809.png

https://www.flightglobal.com/fixed-...-er-in-f-35a-internal-carriage/143866.article
I don't have a flightglobal subscription.
If this is correct, I think that's just a bit too long.
 
It's still within cleared level, I believe AMRAAM is 3.66 meters + .4 brings it to about the same length at AARGM.

"AMRAAM-ER is about 16in (40.6cm) longer than the 12ft (3.7m) conventional AMRAAM, Steve Dickman, Raytheon’s senior director for air dominance, said on 19 May. The variant is about 3in wider in diameter than the 7in-diameter conventional missile.

“So, that’s where you get your additional motor capability: a little bit of length and a little bit of diameter,” he says.

The baseline extended-range variant in production today, intended for the NASAMS battery, uses a Raytheon AMRAAM-C7 guidance section, and RIM-162 Evolved SeaSparrow missile rocket motor and control actuation system, Raytheon says. The next production version of AMRAAM-ER will incorporate an AMRAAM-C8 guidance section and a new rocket motor made by Nammo of Norway, along with a new control actuation system made by Kongsberg.

Dickman says the company believes the US Air Force’s (USAF’s) F-35A could field two examples of the larger missile, one in each internal weapons bay. The F-35A can carry four of the smaller conventional AMRAAMs; two in each internal weapons bay.

Raytheon says it has not yet determined whether the AMRAAM-ER would fit inside the internal weapons bay of the Lockheed F-22 fighter."
 
AIM-260 pretty clearly is more than just a range increase. I suspect it also shortens time of flight out to a given range, increases kinetic performance and maneuvering across all ranges, and has a very sophisticated guidance and fusing system to maximize lethality against a broader collection of target types and velocities. Probably the warhead is non standard too, either something like the PAC3 lethality enhancer mentioned up threat (small charge with a handful of large oblong shrapnel objects from what I understand) or something 3D printed where precise fragment sizes and geometry are printed as a single casing that can accept an HE filler.
 


Write your reply...

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom