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

[Josh_TN]

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

My information is that this a proposed sale/state department approval of 1200 and that exact quantities or time of delivery has not been specified.

 

[_Del_]

Production lines take time to establish, and there is currently zero slack in AMRAAM production. There was hope that Japan could start a line for international production with a large enough order. That did not happen. If there is a war and we shoot more than four AMRAAMs a day, we have a serious problem. Even if we hijack missiles coming off the line that were destined somewhere else, we have a shortfall. Critical.
JATM production, to whatever extent that happens, will help but not alleviate this problem.

 

[Colonial-Marine]

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".

I'm a bit doubtful that the rocket motor on the current AMRAAM's is all-boost without the sustain portion. Even with improvements in the propellants used I would expect a switch like that to result in a decrease in overall range, not an increase.

Is VFDR *and* a multi-pulse rocket motor feasible or desirable? It seems like both provide somewhat similar benefits. I like the idea of going back to an 8" diameter missile body too, but I don't think it would happen unless you had some sort of folding fin configuration. You still want to be able to fit six such missiles in the weapons bay of an F-22 or F-35 with the sidekick rack.

One concept that I'm surprised hasn't resurfaced (at least to the public eye) is the sort of shaping used in the HAVE DASH II program. It seems like that could provide a lot of potential benefit.

 

[Josh_TN]

I presume US inventory is a non zero number in order to sustain conflict. The only production number I could quickly find was via wiki, 14,000 as of 2008, and the source link was dead so that number should be treated as unsupported. But realistically, what are all these AIM-120s shooting at? Certainly not manned aircraft; even the PRC would run out long before inventory became a problem. Cruise missiles, sure, and in the near future UCAVs. But at some point I have a hard time believing there are that many targets to shoot at and still enough surviving friendly aircraft left to shoot them.

 

[Shusui]

I presume US inventory is a non zero number in order to sustain conflict. The only production number I could quickly find was via wiki, 14,000 as of 2008, and the source link was dead so that number should be treated as unsupported. But realistically, what are all these AIM-120s shooting at? Certainly not manned aircraft; even the PRC would run out long before inventory became a problem. Cruise missiles, sure, and in the near future UCAVs. But at some point I have a hard time believing there are that many targets to shoot at and still enough surviving friendly aircraft left to shoot them.

It was from the air armament center in a presentation from 2008.

Click where it says archived if available and you will find the saved page or document from dead links;

 

[_Del_]

I presume US inventory is a non zero number in order to sustain conflict. The only production number I could quickly find was via wiki, 14,000 as of 2008, and the source link was dead so that number should be treated as unsupported. But realistically, what are all these AIM-120s shooting at? Certainly not manned aircraft; even the PRC would run out long before inventory became a problem. Cruise missiles, sure, and in the near future UCAVs. But at some point I have a hard time believing there are that many targets to shoot at and still enough surviving friendly aircraft left to shoot them.

AMRAAM shelf life is about 20 years. Pretty sure most of those 14000 from 2008 would be fired in training, used operationally, donated to Ukraine, or about to time out by now.
Most of the Finnish AMRAAM inventory was set to expire at the same time as their Hornet fleet, for example (now).

 

[SK2]

Production lines take time to establish, and there is currently zero slack in AMRAAM production. There was hope that Japan could start a line for international production with a large enough order. That did not happen. If there is a war and we shoot more than four AMRAAMs a day, we have a serious problem. Even if we hijack missiles coming off the line that were destined somewhere else, we have a shortfall. Critical.
JATM production, to whatever extent that happens, will help but not alleviate this problem.

I am assuming the discussion with Japan on a second AMRAAM production line is still under progress, as they have recently realized they need a lot more stock then they though several years ago

 

[totoro]

From 1987 to 2024, procured.
4461 for dept of navy.
12004 for air force.

Actual delivered are approx 2 years worth of missiles fewer.

Plus missiles tested, used up and sent to ukraine should be subtracted. Their number is unknown.

 

[sferrin]

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.

Strange they couldn't keep it the same length as AIM-120 and ESSM: 144"

 

[yeetmahboi]

One concept that I'm surprised hasn't resurfaced (at least to the public eye) is the sort of shaping used in the HAVE DASH II program. It seems like that could provide a lot of potential benefit.

Have Dash II was the sort of stuff to arm the 1986 ATF: conformally carried, LO/RO. Once you have VLO carriers with IWBs that doesn't matter anymore. Plus, the primary emitting sources on AAM (seeker radiation or exhaust/skin heating) need much different kind of signature reduction.

For more efficient internal carriage sure but that requires solving the ejection and munition selection issue.

 

[quellish]

Have Dash II was the sort of stuff to arm the 1986 ATF: conformally carried, LO/RO. Once you have VLO carriers with IWBs that doesn't matter anymore. Plus, the primary emitting sources on AAM (seeker radiation or exhaust/skin heating) need much different kind of signature reduction.

For more efficient internal carriage sure but that requires solving the ejection and munition selection issue.

HAVE DASH II was designed for bank to turn, not observables.

 

[yeetmahboi]

HAVE DASH II was designed for bank to turn, not observables.

Hmm. The shaping lead me to believe RO was a prime priority like HAVE SLICK. Betrays my expectations.

 

[Josh_TN]

AMRAAM shelf life is about 20 years. Pretty sure most of those 14000 from 2008 would be fired in training, used operationally, donated to Ukraine, or about to time out by now.
Most of the Finnish AMRAAM inventory was set to expire at the same time as their Hornet fleet, for example (now).

Of course, but then I also assume the number purchased by US air arms post 2008 was non zero. That’s just the only hard number I could find.

 

[quellish]

Let’s try to stay on topic.

 

[timmymagic]

From 1987 to 2024, procured.
4461 for dept of navy.
12004 for air force.

Actual delivered are approx 2 years worth of missiles fewer.

Plus missiles tested, used up and sent to ukraine should be subtracted. Their number is unknown.

And a significant number of those missiles were A and B variants. All of which will be life-expired, or if they have had a re-life are now on the final stretch of their service. I suspect a large number of the AMRAAM transferred to Ukraine for NASAMS use are countries offloading A and B variants...

And given Chinese EW capabilities and US contracts over the last few years aimed at countering Chinese DRFM capabilities you have to wonder what utility they'd have in a shooting war in the Pacific.

 

[NMaude]

What are the odds that all remaining unexpended AIM-120As have been sent to Ukraine?

On another note I wonder how many AIM-260As are now in the USAF's inventory and what is its' current production rate?

 

[bring_it_on]

Can someone point me to the AIM-260A thread?

 

[Tomboy]

What are the odds that all remaining unexpended AIM-120As have been sent to Ukraine?

On another note I wonder how many AIM-260As are now in the USAF's inventory and what is its' current production rate?

Theres like technically none AIM-260As in USAF inventory because they aren't in service yet and I'm pretty sure the designation itself doesn't exist either, its just the AIM-260.

 

[bring_it_on]

Theres like technically none AIM-260As in USAF inventory because they aren't in service yet and I'm pretty sure the designation itself doesn't exist either, its just the AIM-260.

That designation (AIM-260A) exists in official AF/DOD documents.

 

[Scott Kenny]

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.

Expending 3 AMRAAMs a day for the Houthis would consume very close to a single year's production.

3 AMRAAMs a day and another 100 expended in the Great Turkey Shoot over Jordan would equal a full year's production.

 

[Josh_TN]

Expending 3 AMRAAMs a day for the Houthis would consume very close to a single year's production.

3 AMRAAMs a day and another 100 expended in the Great Turkey Shoot over Jordan would equal a full year's production.

Yes, I know how math works. What I lack is any actual numbers concerning the AAMs fired, the types of AAMs fired, or even the number of targets potential engaged.

 

[Colonial-Marine]

Have Dash II was the sort of stuff to arm the 1986 ATF: conformally carried, LO/RO. Once you have VLO carriers with IWBs that doesn't matter anymore. Plus, the primary emitting sources on AAM (seeker radiation or exhaust/skin heating) need much different kind of signature reduction.

For more efficient internal carriage sure but that requires solving the ejection and munition selection issue.

HAVE DASH II was designed for bank to turn, not observables.

I believe bank-to-turn must provide some increase in flight efficiency, but it seems like the shape would also be useful for maximizing how many missiles you could carry internally. Any decrease in the RCS of the actual missile is just a bonus.

Back to whatever the AIM-260 is, I've lost track of whatever the schedule for the program even looks like anymore. I thought it was supposed to be doing like shots on targets and in LRIP by now, and at that point I don't see how they could keep the basic appearance of the missile hidden.

 

[quellish]

Back to whatever the AIM-260 is, I've lost track of whatever the schedule for the program even looks like anymore. I thought it was supposed to be doing like shots on targets and in LRIP by now, and at that point I don't see how they could keep the basic appearance of the missile hidden.

They were hitting targets in 2018/2019, it’s at the beginning of production now. Hardware is being produced and delivered

 

[Heatloss]

I'm a bit doubtful that the rocket motor on the current AMRAAM's is all-boost without the sustain portion. Even with improvements in the propellants used I would expect a switch like that to result in a decrease in overall range, not an increase.

Is VFDR *and* a multi-pulse rocket motor feasible or desirable? It seems like both provide somewhat similar benefits. I like the idea of going back to an 8" diameter missile body too, but I don't think it would happen unless you had some sort of folding fin configuration. You still want to be able to fit six such missiles in the weapons bay of an F-22 or F-35 with the sidekick rack.

One concept that I'm surprised hasn't resurfaced (at least to the public eye) is the sort of shaping used in the HAVE DASH II program. It seems like that could provide a lot of potential benefit.

1: Dead link now but Orbital ATK had a document on this. There are two: baseline boost sustain and the integral wing rib motor. That one's all boost.
2: Honestly I'm not a propulsion expert so I cede to you on this. It sounds like it's not air-breathing so it's probably a multi-pulse. Folding fins are becoming extremely common on many designs. If we go to 8" we're getting folding fins.
3: I've suggested it. HAVE DASH II was a good step in the right direction with BTT and LO shaping for carriage and to a lesser degree flight. That shaping matters less now but BTT is something I still think should be pursued.

 

[bring_it_on]

Back to whatever the AIM-260 is, I've lost track of whatever the schedule for the program even looks like anymore. I thought it was supposed to be doing like shots on targets and in LRIP by now, and at that point I don't see how they could keep the basic appearance of the missile hidden.

SecAF testified that they were looking to begin production in 2023. Lockheed took a charge for an 'option' on a classified missile contract in early 2024 for an effort which had pre-2024 advanced procurement costs. This could suggest that the AF exercised LRIP sometime in 2023 and they are now in the production phase.

 

[sferrin]

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.

How are you going to convert this:



into this:

 

[NMaude]

How are you going to convert this:

View attachment 755284

into this:

View attachment 755285

The RIM-7P's GCU was connected to the new 10" rocket-motor and aft-control section by a conical adapter (Which contains the missile's warhead), that adapter is marked by the warhead's yellow-band.

 

[sferrin]

The RIM-7P's GCU was connected to the new 10" rocket-motor and aft-control section by a conical adapter (Which contains the missile's warhead), that adapter is marked by the warhead's yellow-band.

Throwing away 80% of the original isn't really a "conversion". Especially if they're new made. Have NEVER heard they shipped RIM-7s back to the factory, tore them apart, and Frankensteined them back together.

 

[quellish]

They were hitting targets in 2018/2019, it’s at the beginning of production now. Hardware is being produced and delivered

To get back on topic…

I have not yet seen anything to indicate F-18 testing or integration has begun.

There is also no indication there are plans for the F-35 to carry it, and in fact there are counter indications.

The F-22 and F-18 are the only confirmed platforms.

 

[NMaude]

Throwing away 80% of the original isn't really a "conversion".

True but keep in mind that the most expensive part of a missile is its' GCU.

Have NEVER heard they shipped RIM-7s back to the factory, tore them apart, and Frankensteined them back together.

I doubt that such a conversion would need to be made at the factory as thistles are modular, no doubt they'd send the new components to the appropriate munitions depot and mount the RIM-7P GCU onto them.

I don't know if any new build EESM block-Is have been made but I understand that the Block-I variant has been superseded by the much more capable Block-II version.

 

[_Del_]

To get back on topic…

I have not yet seen anything to indicate F-18 testing or integration has begun.

There is also no indication there are plans for the F-35 to carry it, and in fact there are counter indications.

The F-22 and F-18 are the only confirmed platforms.

F-35 integration is/was definitely planned. They talked about it when JATM stories landed and stated it would be later in the program. F-35 software ppl has their hands full already.

 

[quellish]

F-35 integration is/was definitely planned. They talked about it when JATM stories landed and stated it would be later in the program. F-35 software ppl has their hands full already.

No, it was never part of the actual plan or the program of record.

 

[_Del_]

No, it was never part of the actual plan or the program of record.

Well, either it is/was or Gentampo was lying when talking to reporters. He's two jobs, one command and an extra star removed from being an XO for Armament Directive, but I doubt that's the reason why.

 

[Heatloss]

To get back on topic…

I have not yet seen anything to indicate F-18 testing or integration has begun.

There is also no indication there are plans for the F-35 to carry it, and in fact there are counter indications.

The F-22 and F-18 are the only confirmed platforms.

What are these counter-indications?

 

[TomS]

True but keep in mind that the most expensive part of a missile is its' GCU.



I doubt that such a conversion would need to be made at the factory as thistles are modular, no doubt they'd send the new components to the appropriate munitions depot and mount the RIM-7P GCU onto them.

I don't know if any new build EESM block-Is have been made but I understand that the Block-I variant has been superseded by the much more capable Block-II version.

Again, I can find no indication that any operational ESSMs were made by converting existing RIM-7P. (Possibly some early experimental rounds?) Can you provide a source for this?

 

[4decaa]

To get back on topic…

I have not yet seen anything to indicate F-18 testing or integration has begun.

There is also no indication there are plans for the F-35 to carry it, and in fact there are counter indications.

The F-22 and F-18 are the only confirmed platforms.

Why would the F-35 be excluded here from a strategic standpoint? same size, so there shouldn't be any physical integration issues... software? something else?

 

[NMaude]

Again, I can find no indication that any operational ESSMs were made by converting existing RIM-7P. (Possibly some early experimental rounds?) Can you provide a source for this?

This is the impression I got when first reading details about the ESSM years ago.

 

[quellish]

Well, either it is/was or Gentampo was lying when talking to reporters. He's two jobs, one command and an extra star removed from being an XO for Armament Directive, but I doubt that's the reason why.

If you read the direct quotes from him in 2019 it’s clear that the F-35 is described as a “follow on” or “potential”. His statements were wishful thinking and clearly did not reflect the plan or program of record.

 

[quellish]

What are these counter-indications?

Reports on air to air missile plans given to Congress, other statements to Congress, funding for both JATM and F-35, etc.

 

[FighterJock]

Now that the AIM-260 has recieved funding will it now get revealed or will that happen sometime later on in the year?