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

[BDF]

Putting this here because the version of the image other people here have been using is like 10 pixels and hurts my eyes. Source for the presentation is here.View attachment 760650

you can see some sort of joint just above the base of the fins. I wonder if they're foldable? It may not mean anything but I find it interesting that they put that detail there...

 

[Ronny]

But mostall fighters operate both.

Much harder to do with chaff, the thing about flares is their affect spreads out across the seeker, with the sun itself being the ultimate flare, whereas chaff doesn't.

On the contrary,
Chaff does spread out accross the seeker too, in a significant greater degree compared to flare actually.
Firstly, chaff are group of thin metal strips. A single canister consist of thounsand of these strips, once released from aircraft, they will form a cloud even with a single canister.



Secondly, IIR has significantly greater angular accuracy compared to most RF seeker of the same size. That why IIR sensor allow you to see the detail shape of target while most RF seeker only show vague target as a point or vague shape at most. Radar seeker often have beamwidth on order of 0.5-1 degrees. So it is actually much harder (if not borderline impossible) for the radar beam to penetrate a wall of chaff to see target behind it.

Nevertheless, that wall of flares or chaff can hide your aircraft in second then what?. Aircraft are not stationary like a ship, it eventually will fly out of that wall, and the missile doesn’t stay still either. It will just moving forward and eventually pass through the wall too. The wall of flares/chaff are mostly useful for tank or ship as temporary “smoke screen”, since they can stay still behind it.

 

[bring_it_on]

Apparently, this was not the first time the Navy shared a JATM graphic. Brian Everstine from Aviation Week is aware of another from Tailhook presentation from 2022/2023 where the Navy shared the attached graphic.

 

[bring_it_on]

Are not the TDDs of AIM-120 optical?

I don't think so. They upgraded to the Quadrant Target Detection Device at AIM-120C6 and may have had another upgrade between the D and D3 changes. I haven't looked at details but its located just forward to the warhead. Now that I'm looking at it highlights how forward all these components are on the Navy released JATM graphic. If that graphic is an accurate representation, the warhead is more than a foot forward on the missile than the warhead on the AIM-120..all that space is motor and propellant.

 

[Shusui]

Yes, that makes sense. But number of different antennas and pattern looks interesting. The AIM-120 has a targeting device as well..but we don't see it as prominently on renders or views of that weapon. Were these visible in the article you saw?

Yes, I drew them in microsoft paint along with what I thought the shape looked like.

 

[Shusui]

The nosecone as I said was similar to the AMRAAM so I don't think that there are two seeker types being used.. it's probably just an AESA radar if I was to guess and I have absolutely no clue what the hexagonal shapes were for but here is a simple paint drawing showing the arrangement: (The front ones, left, go all the way around it seemed and the shorter ones were spaced out more and offset as shown).
View attachment 702955
I cannot remember exactly how many there are, or the exact spacing and all that obviously.

This is what I drew back in '23

 

[Hanse]

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/lockheed-martin-aim-260-joint-advanced-tactical-missile-jatm.31927/page-8#post-605832

Yep. I thought for sure, considering all the hub-bub around it, that was way too pedestrian for AIM-260.

 

[Ronny]

This is what I drew back in '23

You said there were small fins in front, does it look like Mica fin?

 

[bobbymike]

Maybe some MUTANT tech made it into the design?

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/afrl-missile-utility-transformation-via-articulated-nose-technology-mutant.41179/

 

[Shusui]

Maybe some MUTANT tech made it into the design?

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/afrl-missile-utility-transformation-via-articulated-nose-technology-mutant.41179/

I didn't see any kind of seam on it that would indicate it could articulate like that but it's an interesting idea.

You said there were small fins in front

Yes, but none of the renders we've seen so far appear to show them. I'm inclined to believe they were either placed on there to deceive prying eyes or they've been omitted from the renders for similar reasons. You can see the general shape and after some thought I think it may only have had two or three of them.

Yep. I thought for sure, considering all the hub-bub around it, that was way too pedestrian for AIM-260.

I got a laugh out of people's disbelief. Some pretty funny responses there.

 

[yeetmahboi]

Nearly 2 years later and @Shusui has only been proven more and more correct. Amazing.

 

[Scott Kenny]

As to the points here:

i. Find and kill targets in a complex EW and ECM environment
ii. Field seekers and concepts that address challenges associated with LO and highly maneuverable targets
iii. Challenges associated with i+ii

Home On Jam addresses Point i.
AESAs can do some weird stuff that addresses Point ii.

Could some of those elongated hexagons to be additional antennas to give wider coverage for the seeker? I mean, there's what, two rows of 4 and they're two different sizes? The smaller ones are the TDD, the larger ones are seeker antennas?

 

[Ronny]

As to the points here:
Home On Jam addresses Point i.

With introduction of fiber optic tower decoys and expandable jammer, HOJ is a lot less useful than it used to, because the jammer is offboard, so home on jam mean the missile just gonna hit the decoy

 

[Ronny]

Yes, but none of the renders we've seen so far appear to show them. I'm inclined to believe they were either placed on there to deceive prying eyes or they've been omitted from the renders for similar reasons. You can see the general shape and after some thought I think it may only have had two or three of them.

Were they tiny triangle fin like AIM-120 but smaller ? Or were they rectangle fin like LOGIR

 

[Shusui]

Were they tiny triangle fin like AIM-120 but smaller ? Or were they rectangle fin like LOGIR

They had a unique shape. I find it difficult to describe them well in words. Struck me as vortex generating surfaces more than traditional mid-body wings.

 

[Forest Green]

On the contrary,
Chaff does spread out accross the seeker too, in a significant greater degree compared to flare actually.
Firstly, chaff are group of thin metal strips. A single canister consist of thounsand of these strips, once released from aircraft, they will form a cloud even with a single canister.
View attachment 760716
View attachment 760717

Secondly, IIR has significantly greater angular accuracy compared to most RF seeker of the same size. That why IIR sensor allow you to see the detail shape of target while most RF seeker only show vague target as a point or vague shape at most. Radar seeker often have beamwidth on order of 0.5-1 degrees. So it is actually much harder (if not borderline impossible) for the radar beam to penetrate a wall of chaff to see target behind it.

Nevertheless, that wall of flares or chaff can hide your aircraft in second then what?. Aircraft are not stationary like a ship, it eventually will fly out of that wall, and the missile doesn’t stay still either. It will just moving forward and eventually pass through the wall too. The wall of flares/chaff are mostly useful for tank or ship as temporary “smoke screen”, since they can stay still behind it.

The problem reduces with reduced range though, as the missile gets nearer the beam can go between the chaff and ECCM programming kicks in. With a flare, the closer you get the more blinded the seeker is and ECCM is null and void because the seeker can't see anything. Chaff relies on reflections, flares are emitters in all directions. This explains why people invest more in jamming and expendable decoys + TRDs, as well as ARH for M/LRAAMs.

If you release the flares while climbing, you can dive down behind them and stay behind them for quite some time if done correctly. Less time to do this at close range though.

 

[Josh_TN]

I would have thought such small aerodynamic surfaces would make for lower maneuvering in endgame, though the drag reduction is advantageous. Those fins have to be about the smallest surface area in a BVR AAM I can think of. On the other hand…if the seeker,TDD, and warhead are as far forward as the general consensus seems to think based on bands and what looks like side facing emitters, there would be a lot less weight post burn out and CoG would be well forward compared to AIM-120, yes? Assuming all pulses, however many (I would guess just two) are used.

The main innovation appears to be shrinking down the electronics and warhead with various innovations such that more of the launch weight is propellant.

 

[bring_it_on]

As to the points here:

Home On Jam addresses Point i.
AESAs can do some weird stuff that addresses Point ii.

Could some of those elongated hexagons to be additional antennas to give wider coverage for the seeker? I mean, there's what, two rows of 4 and they're two different sizes? The smaller ones are the TDD, the larger ones are seeker antennas?

You are on the right track here. The Air Force has researched and funded more than a few dual-mode and/or dual-band seeker R&D/S&T efforts focused on future air superiority needs. Overcoming ECM, and performing against low observables was primary driver. Challenges obviously were the designs and operating concepts of those seeker systems and the SwAP challenges especially if you're trying to maintain form factor with AMRAAM. Greater range pulls margin from battery given newer sub-systems and missile communication..

 

[bring_it_on]

I would have thought such small aerodynamic surfaces would make for lower maneuvering in endgame

As well in HOBS or off-axis situations which were an area of interest for the AF as it wanted BVR weapons to have those attributes. For powered flight they could have chosen some sort of thrust vectoring system. That would help out both at initial boost and in subsequent end game if they are using a dual/multi pulse motor. Or at any time if they have a more exotic throttleable system. Or they could have gone for something completely different like ACM's etc

 

[Josh_TN]

There is no indication thrusters are present and there is not a lot of room for anything if the motor band markings are to be believed. It does not seem like TVC is present, but then the image is hardly very detailed or oriented such that it would be obvious. TVC with multi pulse would make the most sense to me.

 

[Scott Kenny]

TVC with multi pulse would make the most sense to me.

Agreed.

 

[yeetmahboi]

My opinion is that it will be TVC via routing exhaust gas through portholes around the tailpipe/rocket chamber.

 

[bring_it_on]

There is no indication thrusters are present and there is not a lot of room for anything if the motor band markings are to be believed. It does not seem like TVC is present, but then the image is hardly very detailed or oriented such that it would be obvious. TVC with multi pulse would make the most sense to me.

Yes exactly. We don't know. But there are two considerations that they would have to account for. One is maneuverability at altitude and across the entire envelope range. There it would need to meet or improve on AMRAAM's performance. Second is HOBS and off-axis capability. This is where AIM-120 has improved as it has evolved, but the AF likely wants even more. Would be interesting to learn how they designed for those considerations once we know more about the design. We will have to wait for more info..or that info is already there and we have to just find it...

 

[Scott Kenny]

Yes exactly. We don't know. But there are two considerations that they would have to account for. One is maneuverability at altitude and across the entire envelope range. There it would need to meet or improve on AMRAAM's performance.

I'm feeling more and more confident in TVC for that improvement.

Second is HOBS and off-axis capability. This is where AIM-120 has improved as it has evolved, but the AF likely wants even more. Would be interesting to learn how they designed for those considerations once we know more about the design. We will have to wait for more info..or that info is already there and we have to just find it...

I think the extended hexagons just behind the radome are lateral arrays. Can't AESAs see to ~30deg of the plane of the array? That'd give a seeker field of view of 300 degrees. Even if AESAs can only see to 45deg off the face of the array, that's still a 270deg FOV.

 

[Josh_TN]

I'm feeling more and more confident in TVC for that improvement.



I think the extended hexagons just behind the radome are lateral arrays. Can't AESAs see to ~30deg of the plane of the array? That'd give a seeker field of view of 300 degrees. Even if AESAs can only see to 45deg off the face of the array, that's still a 270deg FOV.

I cannot imagine those emitters, if that is what they are, would have any significant range. But they might play an important role in fusing a directed warhead or possibly ECCM.

 

[TomS]

I didn't see any kind of seam on it that would indicate it could articulate like that but it's an interesting idea.


Yes, but none of the renders we've seen so far appear to show them. I'm inclined to believe they were either placed on there to deceive prying eyes or they've been omitted from the renders for similar reasons. You can see the general shape and after some thought I think it may only have had two or three of them.



I got a laugh out of people's disbelief. Some pretty funny responses there.

Yeah, I may well owe you an apology. Sorry for being an ass.

 

[TomcatViP]

Could that be that the set of front canard are clipsable popping out when the thruster is first fired to compensate for the wide range of CG variation?
If they were inverted airfoils, they would do great for a lobbing trajectory at launch for bvr, pushing the nose down while having a zero G acceleration. Then for close-in engagement they would remain locked-in.

 

[bring_it_on]

I think the extended hexagons just behind the radome are lateral arrays. Can't AESAs see to ~30deg of the plane of the array? That'd give a seeker field of view of 300 degrees. Even if AESAs can only see to 45deg off the face of the array, that's still a 270deg FOV.

Really just a guess so take it for what its worth, but I think those are some sort multi-function RF arrays used terminally for aiding seeker against ECM, selecting aimpoint and fuzing and perhaps other duties (like communication). The fact that they were spotted visually by Shusui when inspecting a captive round and are prominently featured on both AF and Navy graphics leads me to believe they are an important visual feature on the weapon. The targeting device on the AMRAAM is hardly a visually distinct feature on the weapon so this is something that clearly stands out.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Really just a guess so take it for what its worth, but I think those are some sort multi-function RF arrays used terminally for aiding seeker against ECM, selecting aimpoint and fuzing and perhaps other duties (like communication).

I agree that is what some of them do. But why do the assumed-array fields of view overlap like they do?

There are a row of extended hexagons right next to the nose cone, and behind that another row of more regular hexagons offset from the first row. And we know that planar arrays can pretty much cover at least a 90deg arc, so there's no reason for the two rows of hexagons to do the same thing.

Which is why I think one set is for Seeker FOV and the other is for TDD.

 

[Shusui]

I would like to add that I did not see anything that would indicate it has TVC. It did not look like it had any sort of vane system at the rear and the back end showed no breaks or ports. This is why I believe it is just a body lift missile with reduced stability for increased maneuverability. The small devices I saw 2/3 the way up the missile were likely vortex generators used to prevent flow separation from the rear control surfaces at high angles of attack.

 

[Ronny]

The problem reduces with reduced range though, as the missile gets nearer the beam can go between the chaff and ECCM programming kicks in.

Even with a radar beamwidth of 1 degree, the beam's diameter at a distance of 1 km is still approximately 17 meters. As a result, it would not be possible to view the aircraft if a chaff cloud obstructs the line of sight between the missile and its target.

With a flare, the closer you get the more blinded the seeker is and ECCM is null and void because the seeker can't see anything. Chaff relies on reflections, flares are emitters in all directions.

At the start of video, you can see AIM-9X have no problem hitting the F-4 that continuously releasing flares.

And for IIR sensor, flares appear more or less like a point target rather than a massive glare, you will need to deploy a huge quantity of flares to make a screen to hide your aircraft and even that only work momentarily in only very specific direction like a tail chase

This explains why people invest more in jamming and expendable decoys + TRDs, as well as ARH for M/LRAAMs.

I think the main investment in jamming and expendable decoys is largely driven by the continued effectiveness of radar as the best long range tracking tool, because not only it has long range, it also provide essential information like speed, heading. All long and medium range air defensive system use radar for fire control. If their ground vehicle use radar as fire control system then it make sense that their surface to air missile will use either TVM or SARH or ARH as primary guidance method.
I agree that most M/LAAMs currently use ARH, but that likelu have to do with the fact that radar dome is more aerodynamic than infrared dome and ARH seeker generally can detect target from greater range, which is useful for interception that has very high closure rate. So logically, ARH seeker will pretty much always be primary choice for long range AAM and SAM. But there are some long range missile with IR seeker as secondary sensor such as
SM-2 block IIIB


PL-17 reportedly has a side window for IIR seeker


PL-11AE


Stunner


and of course we also got MICA, R-27ET, HQ-9B

If you release the flares while climbing, you can dive down behind them and stay behind them for quite some time if done correctly. Less time to do this at close range though.

but then the missile does not stand still. If you pre flare at long range, your flares screen can't hide your aircraft . I think it only work if you some how create a massive screen that block the IIR seeker FoV then used that opportunity to dive aways before the missile go through that screen. But that sound insanely niche to be honest.

 

[JoshuaH]

Could that be that the set of front canard are clipsable popping out when the thruster is first fired to compensate for the wide range of CG variation?
If they were inverted airfoils, they would do great for a lobying trajectory at launch for bvr, pushing the nose down while having a zero G acceleration. Then for close-in engagement they would remain locked-in.

Why don’t other wingless missiles like PAC-2, 40N6, and PL-17 have similar issues though…

 

[JoshuaH]

ven with a radar beamwidth of 1 degree, the beam's diameter at a distance of 1 km is still approximately 17 meters. As a result, it would not be possible to view the aircraft if a chaff cloud obstructs the line of sight between the missile and its target.

Chaff are typically rejected by radial speed (Doppler) difference instead of angular direction, that more or less ensures that the missile picks the target out of the chaff cloud.

For the active radar seeker, I am personally more worried about towed decoys and free flying decoys…

 

[TomcatViP]

@joshua : Probably because their designers were less concerned achieving drastic drag reduction?

 

[JoshuaH]

Chaff are typically rejected by radial speed (Doppler) difference instead of angular direction, that more or less ensures that the missile picks the target out of the chaff cloud.

For the active radar seeker, I am personally more worried about towed decoys and free flying decoys…

There is a possibility that against a future low-RCS target with advanced ECM and DIRCM capabilities (think B-21), that all missiles will have to be guided almost all the way to the target, at least until the Ka-band/MMW seeker of some sort can discriminate between the towed decoy and the aircraft itself…

 

[JoshuaH]

@joshua : Probably because their designers were less concerned achieving drastic drag reduction?

Oh… I was thinking more along the lines of the missile is going to have a very forward CG when the rocket motors are empty, which will create a huge maneuvering issue in end-game because the missile always tends to go back to its original trajectory. That problem is probably going to happen with all the wingless missiles though…

 

[Ronny]

Chaff are typically rejected by radial speed (Doppler) difference instead of angular direction, that more or less ensures that the missile picks the target out of the chaff cloud.

Yes indeed, in normal case when the seeker can see both the chaff and the aircraft, chaff are rejected thanks to Doppler effect because they slowed down very quickly. But I was discussing a very specific niche case with Forest green. Because he proposed that a bunch of flares can act as a screen to neutralize IIR seeker if they happen to block the direct line of sight between the missile and the target. I was saying that situation is a very niche case and a cloud of chaff will have similar effect on ARH sensor if they blocked the direct LOS.

 

[Josh_TN]

Something else I thought of concerning those clipped rear fins - that should greatly ease internal carriage. I still am little surprised that there is no other mechanism for maneuvering, but perhaps the far forward CG (assuming a 50% motor length)/relaxed stability compensates for small surface area.

 

[Ronny]

Something else I thought of concerning those clipped rear fins - that should greatly ease internal carriage. I still am little surprised that there is no other mechanism for maneuvering, but perhaps the far forward CG (assuming a 50% motor length)/relaxed stability compensates for small surface area.

the rear fin also look like it can be folded. What if AIM-260 can be stacked very close together to allow more than 6 missiles internally on F-35?. One can dream

 

[JoshuaH]

Yes indeed, in normal case when the seeker can see both the chaff and the aircraft, chaff are rejected thanks to Doppler effect because they slowed down very quickly. But I was discussing a very specific niche case with Forest green. Because he proposed that a bunch of flares can act as a screen to neutralize IIR seeker if they happen to block the direct line of sight between the missile and the target. I was saying that situation is a very niche case and a cloud of chaff will have similar effect on ARH sensor if they blocked the direct LOS.

That would be a very niche case indeed, I would worry more about DIRCM and higher power defensive laser systems…