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

[NMaude]

AIM-174A poses the same problems

AIM-174B, the "A" variant is the SL RIM-174A.

 

[_Del_]

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.

The real math that matters is mass at the front. The fact you have a quite capable and far more affordable missile already at max production is what is going to keep the production open indefinitely.
They gave away a bunch of stock, pried as many as they could from partner nations, and now they're gone. Hopefully, they are learning what people have been trying to say for an eternity. We don't have the munitions to maintain an actual air campaign against a capable enemy, and it takes a long time to kick start production.
JATM is great, but it doesn't mean much if we can't field it in the required numbers because of cost or industrial factors. I don't think AMRAAM is going anywhere. If we're lucky, they JATM works as advertised, they buy them in number and build the international AMRAAM production line for partner nations.

 

[Shusui]

The AIM-260A JATM program is the number one air-delivered weapon priority for both the Air Force and the Navy; and out prioritizes other weapon system improvements and modernization efforts on any fielded aircraft. Because of the classified nature of this program, AIM 260A JATM assets cannot be housed in shared facilities with legacy munitions; and must be supported by a facility designed to meet specific operational requirements, and the stricter Special Access Program Facility security requirements.

New AIM-260 Missiles Are So Secretive They Will Require A Custom Storage Bunker At Hill AFB

Budget docs dated March of 2019 give the first official explanation of the program and why it needs a $6.5M high-security storage vault at Hill AFB.

www.twz.com

I think to refer to the AMRAAM as "legacy" implies quite a lot. The definition relating to computer hardware is the most useful relation here; "denoting or relating to software or hardware that has been superseded but is difficult to replace because of its wide use."

Legacy airframes that currently use the AIM-120 may never upgrade to the AIM-260 but will still be in service for many years. They will want to continue using legacy munitions such as the AMRAAM.

 

[ncc81701]

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.

This is because the purpose of a PL-15 is different than whatever new AAM the USAF/USN is trying to field. The Chinese are probably looking to target things like tankers at long distances with PL-15s. This is because the Chinese understands that if we don’t have tankers then it doesn’t matter how much better F-22s and F-35s are in a fight over the first island chain because they don’t have the range to get into the fight at all. Tanker type aircrafts are large and have low maneuverability so you can sacrifice a lot of agility in the missile, trade it in for range and still have a reasonable probability of kill on a tanker like aircraft. PL-15s probably wouldn’t be able to hit fighter size targets with any reasonable chance of success at the ranges people often attribute to it.

This is pure speculation on my part but what the USAF/USN wants is likely something with a comparable range to the PL-15 but still retain enough agility to engage fighter size targets with a reasonable probability of kill. This is so you can put things like J-20 at risk before they can get in range to launch their PL-15 at the tankers. This is a far more difficult problem to solve and it’s one that requires more than just adding more range to US AAMs; for example increasing agility to keep up with a fighter that’s maneuvering, the sensors and guidance needed to track a fighter size target (probably an LO one at that) at the terminal phase.

 

[yeetmahboi]

PL-15 is, roughly speaking, an AMRAAM analogue.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Remember that the AMRAAM was intended to be the same form factor as the Sparrow, and yet it ended up 1" smaller in diameter.

I don't think so? The entire point of AMRAAM was to be lighter and smaller than Sparrow so it could be carried by the F-16 more easily.

 

[Scott Kenny]

I don't think so? The entire point of AMRAAM was to be lighter and smaller than Sparrow so it could be carried by the F-16 more easily.

Still had to be carried in the same conformal positions as Sparrow on F-15 etc.

 

[totoro]

PL-15 is, roughly speaking, an AMRAAM analogue.

Yeah. Pl-17 is the big, long missile.
But even there i wonder if it's prudent to label it not really effective against fighters.
Because when you look at it, its really like a patriot or s400 missile, only somewhat smaller. (But launched at high altitude and some starting velocity)

So if patriot/s400 configuration missiles are lethal enough against fighters, the pl17 might be as well.

 

[Tomboy]

This is because the purpose of a PL-15 is different than whatever new AAM the USAF/USN is trying to field. The Chinese are probably looking to target things like tankers at long distances with PL-15s. This is because the Chinese understands that if we don’t have tankers then it doesn’t matter how much better F-22s and F-35s are in a fight over the first island chain because they don’t have the range to get into the fight at all. Tanker type aircrafts are large and have low maneuverability so you can sacrifice a lot of agility in the missile, trade it in for range and still have a reasonable probability of kill on a tanker like aircraft. PL-15s probably wouldn’t be able to hit fighter size targets with any reasonable chance of success at the ranges people often attribute to it.

This is pure speculation on my part but what the USAF/USN wants is likely something with a comparable range to the PL-15 but still retain enough agility to engage fighter size targets with a reasonable probability of kill. This is so you can put things like J-20 at risk before they can get in range to launch their PL-15 at the tankers. This is a far more difficult problem to solve and it’s one that requires more than just adding more range to US AAMs; for example increasing agility to keep up with a fighter that’s maneuvering, the sensor, s and guidance needed to track a fighter size target (probably an LO one at that) at the terminal phase.

PL-15 would be more of an AMRAAM equivalent in role, its their standard long range A2A missile, It should have comparable maneuverability comparable to basically any other missile comparable in role. While what I feel like your describing would be more of the role of PL-17.

 

[Forest Green]

View attachment 754885

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.

Is AMRAAM-ER the same as AIM-260 or a different missile?

It's still within cleared level, I believe AMRAAM is 3.66 meters + .4 brings it to about the same length at AARGM.

And again poses problems for the silly little bays on the F-35B.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Still had to be carried in the same conformal positions as Sparrow on F-15 etc.

Yep but it was always going to be lighter hence reduced diameter.

 

[Josh_TN]

Yeah. Pl-17 is the big, long missile.
But even there i wonder if it's prudent to label it not really effective against fighters.
Because when you look at it, its really like a patriot or s400 missile, only somewhat smaller. (But launched at high altitude and some starting velocity)

So if patriot/s400 configuration missiles are lethal enough against fighters, the pl17 might be as well.

It is probably relatively effective at shorter ranges. 300-400 km is going to require a very distant initial detection - tankers are easier to track because they are large; AEW even easier because they blast RF to do their job. Also keep in mind that the flight time to 300-400 km is going to measured in minutes not seconds. Even with mid course updates, a target with fighter level maneuvering that simply reverses course at max power and turning rate probably falls out of envelope pretty quickly at those kind of ranges. Those small control surfaces on such a large missile probably do not favor tight turns in the endgame either (unless theirs a set of lateral thrusters I am unaware of).

On the other hand, such long range shots would force formations to break up or at least pull of their base line course, assuming you were tracking fighters at that range.

 

[TomcatViP]

If you had any doubts AMRAAM will stay for long:

State approves $3.64B sale to Japan of air-to-air missiles - Breaking Defense

The possible sale of the RTX-made AMRAAMs includes up to 1,200 missiles.

breakingdefense.com

 

[Jason Dykstra (Wyvern)]

Is AMRAAM-ER the same as AIM-260 or a different missile?

AMRAAM-ER is just a modified ESSM with an AMRAAM seekerhead

 

[totoro]

It is probably relatively effective at shorter ranges. 300-400 km is going to require a very distant initial detection - tankers are easier to track because they are large; AEW even easier because they blast RF to do their job. Also keep in mind that the flight time to 300-400 km is going to measured in minutes not seconds. Even with mid course updates, a target with fighter level maneuvering that simply reverses course at max power and turning rate probably falls out of envelope pretty quickly at those kind of ranges. Those small control surfaces on such a large missile probably do not favor tight turns in the endgame either (unless theirs a set of lateral thrusters I am unaware of).

On the other hand, such long range shots would force formations to break up or at least pull of their base line course, assuming you were tracking fighters at that range.

That is true for almost any missile, be it land or air launched. A target that is somehow alerted and has the ability to quickly go supersonic and change its position is gonna lower effectiveness for ANY missile.
S-400's 40N6 missiles will be more effective at 200 km than at 400 km. 48N6 will be more effective at 100 km than at 200 km. PAC-2's missiles will be more effective at 80 km than at 160 km. Just like AMRAAM is gonna be more effective at 100 km than at 200 km against fighters.
(this does not imply same level of effectiveness scaling for various missiles mentioned here)

 

[Forest Green]

AMRAAM-ER is just a modified ESSM with an AMRAAM seekerhead

Of course, I forgot with it being this thread.

 

[_Del_]

If you had any doubts AMRAAM will stay for long:

State approves $3.64B sale to Japan of air-to-air missiles - Breaking Defense

The possible sale of the RTX-made AMRAAMs includes up to 1,200 missiles.

breakingdefense.com

Production is maxed out at ~1200 a year right now. There was talk around opening another line. The most likely candidate was Japan. A bit disappointed terms weren't reached. But yes, it's going to be around awhile.

 

[bring_it_on]

AIM-120 production will likely be maxed out for a while given NASAMS consumption/growth, and the need to replace US inventory. As Secretary Kendall has mentioned including in public testimony last year, the USAF is looking to expand JATM production so while AIM-120 is capped at 1.2K you have to consider JATM production and ramp now that we have two missiles essentially int he same class being acquired. Where we don't yet have a second missile and have seen higher demand like AIM-9X, we've increased production to support need/.

 

[Josh_TN]

That is true for almost any missile, be it land or air launched. A target that is somehow alerted and has the ability to quickly go supersonic and change its position is gonna lower effectiveness for ANY missile.
S-400's 40N6 missiles will be more effective at 200 km than at 400 km. 48N6 will be more effective at 100 km than at 200 km. PAC-2's missiles will be more effective at 80 km than at 160 km. Just like AMRAAM is gonna be more effective at 100 km than at 200 km against fighters.
(this does not imply same level of effectiveness scaling for various missiles mentioned here)

Longer ranges none the less complicate all these problems more, as does a heavier missile with smaller control surfaces. Same applies to AIM-174B.

 

[Josh_TN]

I believe AIM-120 is slated to run at capacity (I believe the previously mentioned 1200 ish correct) through 2028 ish in budget documents. I think I read that the order/ production budget falls off a cliff in 2029, but even if I am remembering correctly, the plan can change.

 

[NMaude]

AMRAAM-ER is just a modified ESSM with an AMRAAM seekerhead

I suppose you could make an AMRAAM-MR by attaching the AMRAAM seeker head/fuse/warhead assembly to the now surplus RIM-7P Mk-58 rocket-motor/control-wings assembly (Surplus due to RIM-7Ps being converted to RIM-162A ESSMs).

 

[timmymagic]

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.

Given that the entire annual production of SM-6 was c120 until 2024, when it may have reached 150, I think the chances of the USN having a 'few hundred' AIM-174B in stock is, especially given the need to undertake a test campaign using missiles produced, is near zero. I'd be amazed if they had more than 100 in stock...if that. Can't imagine the surface navy would give up 2 years worth of their main interceptor missiles production...

I believe AIM-120 is slated to run at capacity (I believe the previously mentioned 1200 ish correct) through 2028 ish in budget documents. I think I read that the order/ production budget falls off a cliff in 2029, but even if I am remembering correctly, the plan can change.

Given the recent export orders and need to re-stock, and the clear delays in AIM-260 deployment and production, I suspect that 2028 date has been long forgotten about in practice..

 

[NMaude]

Given that the entire annual production of SM-6 was c120 until 2024, when it may have reached 150, I think the chances of the USN having a 'few hundred' AIM-174B in stock is, especially given the need to undertake a test campaign using missiles produced, is near zero. I'd be amazed if they had more than 100 in stock...if that. Can't imagine the surface navy would give up 2 years worth of their main interceptor missiles production...

What are the odds that a second production line will be set up and opened? Or perhaps even a second source with another company?

 

[NASA]

Given that the entire annual production of SM-6 was c120 until 2024, when it may have reached 150, I think the chances of the USN having a 'few hundred' AIM-174B in stock is, especially given the need to undertake a test campaign using missiles produced, is near zero. I'd be amazed if they had more than 100 in stock...if that. Can't imagine the surface navy would give up 2 years worth of their main interceptor missiles production...



Given the recent export orders and need to re-stock, and the clear delays in AIM-260 deployment and production, I suspect that 2028 date has been long forgotten about in practice..

Just passing along what has been confirmed to me from people embedded with the USN during RIMPAC 2024. When the discussions of the AIM-174B and how it fits into the fleet came up, the answers given included the USN having "at least a few hundred" of these systems. I'm also not really sure what annual production has to do with this giVen the missiles could be re-manufactured/converted from the Navy’s stocks of close to 900 SM-6 I/IAs.


(This wasn't, I know a guy, who knows a guy, who goes to a yoga class with a guy who was on a carrier in RIMPAC 24' but more I directly spoke to the person who did the interview with the USN)

 

[TomS]

I suppose you could make an AMRAAM-MR by attaching the AMRAAM seeker head/fuse/warhead assembly to the now surplus RIM-7P Mk-58 rocket-motor/control-wings assembly (Surplus due to RIM-7Ps being converted to RIM-162A ESSMs).

To the best of my knowledge, ESSM was entirely new construction, none were converted from RIM-7P or any other Sea Sparrows.

 

[NMaude]

none were converted from RIM-7P or any other Sea Sparrows.

The ESSM Block I was as far as I know converted from RIM-7M/Ps but the Block-II is a completely new design with a constant 10" diameter and a modified AMRAAM active-radar seeker.

 

[TomS]

The ESSM Block I was as far as I know converted from RIM-7M/Ps but the Block-II is a completely new design with a constant 10" diameter and a modified AMRAAM active-radar seeker.

I believe you are mistaken. The RIM-162A seeker was based on RIM-7P with some significant modifications to the autopilot. But as far as I can tell, they were all new builds.

 

[Scott Kenny]

I suppose you could make an AMRAAM-MR by attaching the AMRAAM seeker head/fuse/warhead assembly to the now surplus RIM-7P Mk-58 rocket-motor/control-wings assembly (Surplus due to RIM-7Ps being converted to RIM-162A ESSMs).

I'm not sure how many of those would still be in usable condition.

 

[Josh_TN]

Given the recent export orders and need to re-stock, and the clear delays in AIM-260 deployment and production, I suspect that 2028 date has been long forgotten about in practice..

Why does the U.S. need to restock? What specific events are you referring to? Ukraine donations that were predominantly, if not completely, old models past their sell by date? Operations in the mid east?

 

[Scott Kenny]

Why does the U.S. need to restock? What specific events are you referring to? Ukraine donations that were predominantly, if not completely, old models past their sell by date? Operations in the mid east?

I'm assuming the great Turkey Shoots Over Jordan...

Edit for plural.

 

[Josh_TN]

I'm assuming the great Turkey Shoot Over Jordan...

So low hundreds at most?

 

[NMaude]

I'm assuming the great Turkey Shoot Over Jordan...

That and the events in the Russo-Ukrainian show that you need a LOT of guided missiles in ones inventories if there's a prolonged high-intensity war going on.

 

[Scott Kenny]

So low hundreds at most?

Plus everything being used over Yemen, etc.

And as NMaude says, the Russo-Ukrainian war has shown that you need a LOT more missiles in inventory than the 1991-2022 timeframe kept on-hand.

 

[Josh_TN]

Plus everything being used over Yemen, etc.

And as NMaude says, the Russo-Ukrainian war has shown that you need a LOT more missiles in inventory than the 1991-2022 timeframe kept on-hand.

I recognize inventories matter, but if 1200 weapons are being produced per year and you use less than that per year, inventory is still climbing. Does anyone think US AIM-120 usage topped U.S. purchases in 2024?

 

[_Del_]

Plus everything being used over Yemen, etc.

And as NMaude says, the Russo-Ukrainian war has shown that you need a LOT more missiles in inventory than the 1991-2022 timeframe kept on-hand.

All this, and also, as Josh rightly points out, missiles have a shelf life.

I recognize inventories matter, but if 1200 weapons are being produced per year and you use less than that per year, inventory is still climbing. Does anyone think US AIM-120 usage topped U.S. purchases in 2024?

The ~1200 number reflects production for worldwide customers. Not US purchases.



To add:

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CREC-2024-06-12/html/CREC-2024-06-12-pt1-PgH3767.htm

SEC. 175. ASSESSMENT OF AIR-TO-AIR MISSILE INVENTORY
REQUIREMENTS AND RELATED CAPABILITIES.

(a) Assessment of Air-to-air Missile Inventory.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary of the Air Force and the
Secretary of the Navy, in coordination with the commanders of
the combatant commands, shall jointly conduct an assessment
of the sufficiency of established inventory requirements for
air-to-air missiles within the Armed Forces under the
jurisdiction of such Secretaries.
...
(ii) the total inventory of air-to-air missiles expected to
be available for use in such year, considered separately for
each type of missile;
(B) the inventory levels of air-to-air missiles needed to
support the operational plans of the United States Central
Command, the United States Indo-Pacific Command, the United
States Northern Command, and the United States European
Command, assessed separately for each command at low, medium,
and high risk levels;
(C) emerging requirements for surface-to-air defense and
collaborative combat aircraft capabilities, and how such
emerging requirements are expected to impact inventory
requirements for air-to-air missiles;
(D) whether the numbers and types of missiles expected to
be delivered through 2029, as determined under subparagraph
(A), are sufficient to meet all testing, training, and
operational requirements of the military departments and
combatant commands;
(E) whether extending the AIM-120 Advanced Medium-Range
Air-to-Air Missile program of record through 2029 would
enhance available inventories of air-to-air missiles during
such period; and
(F) recommendations to adjust the planned missile mix, to
include development and fielding of an AIM-120D Extended
Range missile and procurement quantities to support combined
combatant command requirements at a medium-level of
operational risk.

 

[Josh_TN]

I am willing to bet 70-80% of production or more is for US services. Every time I see a foreign purchase it seems to be for token amounts.

 

[Forest Green]

Plus everything being used over Yemen, etc.

And as NMaude says, the Russo-Ukrainian war has shown that you need a LOT more missiles in inventory than the 1991-2022 timeframe kept on-hand.

And you need a war economy fully planned before the actual war.

 

[Scott Kenny]

I recognize inventories matter, but if 1200 weapons are being produced per year and you use less than that per year, inventory is still climbing. Does anyone think US AIM-120 usage topped U.S. purchases in 2024?

Global, not counting Ukraine?

It wouldn't surprise me.

It's been what, 3 volleys of ~200-300 drones and cruise missiles going into Israel? We know that not all of them were shot down with AMRAAMs, just based on weapons loads of the planes involved, but somewhere between half and two-thirds is a reasonable estimate, and that means between 100-200 each time. That's 300-600 expended right there, and I'm assuming that Sidewinders and APKWS took down the rest.

How many drones etc have been shot down over Yemen? There was at least one Hornet flying around with over 5 drones painted on the nose, back in June. Other Air Forces have shown more than 10 drone silhouettes. 600 AMRAAMs used over 365 days would not surprise me, that's not even 2 per day.

 

[timmymagic]

I am willing to bet 70-80% of production or more is for US services. Every time I see a foreign purchase it seems to be for token amounts.

Japan just signed on the dotted line for 1200....a full years production.

 

[Josh_TN]

Global, not counting Ukraine?

It wouldn't surprise me.

It's been what, 3 volleys of ~200-300 drones and cruise missiles going into Israel? We know that not all of them were shot down with AMRAAMs, just based on weapons loads of the planes involved, but somewhere between half and two-thirds is a reasonable estimate, and that means between 100-200 each time. That's 300-600 expended right there, and I'm assuming that Sidewinders and APKWS took down the

There were two Iranian attacks, with the second being almost entirely ballistic missiles. The first was roughly 200 UAVs/cruise missiles and >100 ballistic missiles, which a quick wiki search indicates the U.S., UK, and Jordan claim to have shot down ~100 of.

I have no numbers for Houthi And The Blowfish; thier attacks seem far more sparse but they have been more sustained.

I am not arguing against stocking munitions, but I think the current line is sufficient. The U.S. has a much better chance of running out of airbases or aircraft in theater before it expends thousands of AAMs. Quite honestly if enough counter air sorties were being run to deplete an inventory that I suspect is in the low to mid thousands, building up by nearly a thousand a year, then things are going better than expected.