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

[Josh_TN]

Ah, I'm at work and couldn't review the video. That sounds as challenging as the DARPA idea, especially as a back fit. I'll have to watch when I get home to see how they propose to extinguish a lit motor.

 

[sferrin]

Ah, I'm at work and couldn't review the video. That sounds as challenging as the DARPA idea, especially as a back fit. I'll have to watch when I get home to see how they propose to extinguish a lit motor.

Pressure drop if I had to guess.

 

[bring_it_on]

Turns out, that the first reported JATM related QF-16 activity may have been in December 2019.

 

[GARGEAN]

That timing is impressive. I wonder if it's going so well or just started earlier than commonly anticipated.

 

[bring_it_on]

I think it was reported earlier that the EMD contract was awarded in 2017 after a competitive phase which likely saw some prototyping. There has been a very long list of counter air missile tech research going back the last 10-15 years so I wouldn't be surprised if they were able to move relatively quickly because they had a few things ready that could easily be integrated. Lockheed has also done a lot of work via its hit to kill missile interceptor programs so probably had some advantage there in terms of tech, experience, and supplier teams that it could pull together.

 

[bring_it_on]

The Weekly Debrief: New Data Dump Shows AIM-260 Flight Test Activity | Aviation Week Network

A newly discovered data dump by the U.S. Air Force last August discloses the first details about the progress in flight test of the secretive Lockheed Martin AIM-260 Joint Advanced Tactical Missile.

aviationweek.com

 

[Lc89]

Will it also be used as an air to ground missile?

 

[bring_it_on]

While the Air Force is looking to divest the F-22, one weapon slated for a funding surge is the AIM-120 Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile funding, after appearing to wind down over several years. Moore was asked if that’s a sign the AIM-260 JATM, which is to succeed the AMRAAM, is having problems, or whether the Air Force simply seeks greater stockpiles.

“We don’t see a delay in JATM,” Moore said. “And we want to get to JATM as quickly as we possibly can.” He said the budget also includes “along with some AMRAAM investment, some facilitization money that will help us get to JATM faster. Once we can start procuring it, we’ll get to quantity as fast as we can,” he added.

Moore: ‘It’s Time to Move On’ from Block 20 F-22s, JATM Still on Schedule

The Air Force needs the $7 billion saved by retiring 32 Block 20 F-22s for the NGAD sixth-gen fighter system, the service's top planner said.

www.airandspaceforces.com

 

[NMaude]

I suppose with the surge in AIM-120s is that it's better to have too many and not needing them than having too few and needing them.

 

[Ronny]

While the Air Force is looking to divest the F-22, one weapon slated for a funding surge is the AIM-120 Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile funding, after appearing to wind down over several years. Moore was asked if that’s a sign the AIM-260 JATM, which is to succeed the AMRAAM, is having problems, or whether the Air Force simply seeks greater stockpiles.

“We don’t see a delay in JATM,” Moore said. “And we want to get to JATM as quickly as we possibly can.” He said the budget also includes “along with some AMRAAM investment, some facilitization money that will help us get to JATM faster. Once we can start procuring it, we’ll get to quantity as fast as we can,” he added.

Moore: ‘It’s Time to Move On’ from Block 20 F-22s, JATM Still on Schedule

The Air Force needs the $7 billion saved by retiring 32 Block 20 F-22s for the NGAD sixth-gen fighter system, the service's top planner said.

www.airandspaceforces.com

Kinda wish we see the shape and dimension of AIM-260, kinda wonder if it fit sidekick rack

 

[NMaude]

Kinda wish we see the shape and dimension of AIM-260, kinda wonder if it fit sidekick rack

I suspect that in the next year or two we'll get to see what the AIM-260 looks like (Also why its designation is AIM-260) but as for its' dimensions they are no doubt very similar to that of the AIM-120's.

 

[FighterJock]

That is a puzzle for me too, Why is it the AIM-260? Weird. I also want to know what the maximum range will be? The USAF is currently lacking a long range missile to counter the R-37.

 

[sferrin]

The reason for it being called AIM-260 is almost certainly as asinine as the reason the F-35 is called the F-35 and the B-21 the B-21. Also I would doubt it looks like the AIM-120 else there would be no reason to hide its appearance. Dimensionally? Maybe. A CUDA with a booster, giving it an overall length the same as an AIM-120 maybe? (Still don't know why they appear to have done nothing with CUDA. It seemed like such an awesome concept.)

 

[FighterJock]

True, about the CUDA missile sferrin, I have not heard any news about it recently. It would give much more firepower to the F-35 and future 6th Generation aircraft.

 

[Josh_TN]

I suppose with the surge in AIM-120s is that it's better to have too many and not needing them than having too few and needing them.

There is a general push in this year’s budget to pad ammunition inventories. I think expenditure rates in Ukraine came as a bit of a shock, and a Sino-American war would probably have consumption levels an order or two magnitude greater.

 

[Josh_TN]

That is a puzzle for me too, Why is it the AIM-260? Weird. I also want to know what the maximum range will be? The USAF is currently lacking a long range missile to counter the R-37.

It would be useful to adopt SM-6 as a very long range AAM. No development time. There are going to be a lot of PLA AEW targets. Presumably USAF feels F-22s a provide sufficient boost in launch speed and altitude that such a weapon is unnecessary. Or perhaps given how secretive USAF has been recently, there already is some kind of VLR AAM in the works. Perhaps Cuda/Peregrine as well. You would probably need an AAM that small for the future CCA force.

 

[bring_it_on]

I suppose with the surge in AIM-120s is that it's better to have too many and not needing them than having too few and needing them.

Its the only medium range missile in play that is in full production and can be purchased via a large multi year buy. It will be take at least a decade, if not longer, for the JATM to be available in that much annual quantity, and be integrated on that many platforms. So if your goal is to build capacity for the near to mid term, the AIM-120D is the best bet. Not to mention that they will probably also transfer a fairly significant number of older missiles to Ukraine so its a good opportunity for the DOD to backfill with more modern variants.

 

[bring_it_on]

(Still don't know why they appear to have done nothing with CUDA. It seemed like such an awesome concept.)

They put the CUDA in flight testing as part of an AFRL grant. There is a modular missile program that is looking at future concepts via similar weapons. It is very much alive and funded but not a near term capability. You will need smaller, more densely packaged air-air missiles for the Collaborative Combat aircraft so this is very much a need. Ultimately, half the size is probably not going to be sufficient, it probably also needs a dramatic cost reduction given the need to also shoot down significantly lower cost targets to more traditional A2A missiles (enemy CCA and attritable aircraft vs fighters).

 

[Ainen]

It would be useful to adopt SM-6 as a very long range AAM. No development time.

SAMs aren't designed to receive a huge kick to their side (needed to reliably drop something this big from an aircraft). On top of that - SM-6 in particular is a VLS missile, meaning it probably won't like being dragged around without one.

You may reuse components, but missile will be basically brand-new.
Adopting A2A missiles to ground use works(thou they end up being horribly suboptimal). The opposite is much harder to get right.

 

[Josh_TN]

Standard ARM was a conversion, although that was of a rail launched SAM. Fair point about ejection/separation. There is however an image of an F-18 with a SM-2/6 looking item circa 2019, so it seems someone gave it a try.

 

[TomS]

It would be useful to adopt SM-6 as a very long range AAM. No development time.

SAMs aren't designed to receive a huge kick to their side (needed to reliably drop something this big from an aircraft). On top of that - SM-6 in particular is a VLS missile, meaning it probably won't like being dragged around without one.

You may reuse components, but missile will be basically brand-new.
Adopting A2A missiles to ground use works(thou they end up being horribly suboptimal). The opposite is much harder to get right.

We've seen something looking very much like an SM-6 hanging off a Super Hornet pylon within the last year or two. The question is whether they intended it as a long-range AAM or some sort of interim supersonic AShM.

Worth remembering that the Standard family were designed to hang off a launch rail first, with VLS coming later. How much of that got designed out over the years is unclear but it may be a legacy capability.

 

[Josh_TN]

It would be useful to adopt SM-6 as a very long range AAM. No development time.

SAMs aren't designed to receive a huge kick to their side (needed to reliably drop something this big from an aircraft). On top of that - SM-6 in particular is a VLS missile, meaning it probably won't like being dragged around without one.

You may reuse components, but missile will be basically brand-new.
Adopting A2A missiles to ground use works(thou they end up being horribly suboptimal). The opposite is much harder to get right.

We've seen something looking very much like an SM-6 hanging off a Super Hornet pylon within the last year or two. The question is whether they intended it as a long-range AAM or some sort of interim supersonic AShM.

Worth remembering that the Standard family were designed to hang off a launch rail first, with VLS coming later. How much of that got designed out over the years is unclear but it may be a legacy capability.

If they could get it launch, presumably both target sets could be hit with sufficient integration with the aircraft. Soft, high value land targets likely also could be hit; that’s how the army is using them. It would add a lot of capabilities to the air wing.

 

[eagle]

Here is the Super Hornet carrying an "SM-6 like missile":

The Weekly Debrief: Air-launched, SM-6-like Missile Exposed In New Test Photo | Aviation Week Network

A civilian photographer captured the photo in 2018 as the F/A-18F with the markings of VX-31 air test and evaluation squadron landed at Point Mugu, California.

aviationweek.com

 

[FighterJock]

Nice find Eagle, I wonder if that is the AIM-260 or something else completely different. Only time will tell.

 

[TomS]

Nice find Eagle, I wonder if that is the AIM-260 or something else completely different. Only time will tell.

It's not AIM-260 JATM because we know that JATM fits in the same volume as an AIM-120.

 

[Forest Green]

How big is it from that photo though? It also looks more SM-2 shape than SM-6, despite the title.

 

[Josh_TN]

How big is it from that photo though? It also looks more SM-2 shape than SM-6, despite the title.

Isn’t SM-6 about the same shape and size, sans Mk72 booster? In the case of this particular photo I read an article that made a convincing case that this particular object had SM-6 characteristics but I don’t recall details. There is a conversion kit for SM-2 to bring it to the Blk 3C standard, which is more or less an SM-6.

 

[NMaude]

SAMs aren't designed to receive a huge kick to their side (needed to reliably drop something this big from an aircraft). On top of that - SM-6 in particular is a VLS missile, meaning it probably won't like being dragged around without one.

If you want a long-range AIM-54 style AAM then have an air-launched SM-6 with Mk-114 booster (The Mk-114 burns for 5s producing 11,000Lb of thrust).

 

[TomS]

How big is it from that photo though? It also looks more SM-2 shape than SM-6, despite the title.

As Josh said, SM2MR and the SM6 upper stage are dimensionally almost identical. There are some subtle differences in the strakes that mark the one on the Super Hornet as an SM-6 or close relative.

If you want a long-range AIM-54 style AAM then have an air-launched SM-6 with Mk-114 booster (The Mk-114 burns for 5s producing 11,000Lb of thrust).

An air-launched SM-6 upper stage already almost certainly out-ranges a Phoenix. It weighs a good 50% more even without a booster. And a booster like Mk114 is meant to be stacked vertically with a missile above it, not hanging off the missile horizontally. The loads on the attachment point would be gnarly.

 

[Josh_TN]

SAMs aren't designed to receive a huge kick to their side (needed to reliably drop something this big from an aircraft). On top of that - SM-6 in particular is a VLS missile, meaning it probably won't like being dragged around without one.

If you want a long-range AIM-54 style AAM then have an air-launched SM-6 with Mk-114 booster (The Mk-114 burns for 5s producing 11,000Lb of thrust).

SM-2 is supposed to have an effective range of ~80nm. SM-2/6 without a booster is probably already good for 200mi/300km with high altitude air launch against a naval target or large unmaneuvering air target.

 

[NMaude]

And a booster like Mk114 is meant to be stacked vertically with a missile above it, not hanging off the missile horizontally. The loads on the attachment point would be gnarly.

The Mk-114 and SM-6 would have to be redesigned to take those loads however I do think it's feasible if you're looking at a super long-range AAM.

 

[sferrin]

I think it's safe to say there would NEVER be an SM-2/3/6, with booster, on a plane. The differences in diameter between the booster and missile body are too much. Would be clunky as hell to mount.

 

[NMaude]

The differences in diameter between the booster and missile body are too much. Would be clunky as hell to mount.

If you're talking about the Mk-72 you are correct however the Mk-114 is only 14.1" in diameter (The Standard missile is 13.5") so that wouldn't be an issue.

 

[Josh_TN]

As TomS pointed out, those boosters are designed to take the missile weight vertically. I doubt they would stay attached horizontally without a total redesign, certainly not if you talking about cats and traps. Also what is the booster buying you if you already have a 200mi/300km range without it? Another issue is burn out speed. Air launch sans booster probably leaves the missile in roughly the same speed range; adding a booster to the forward speed of the aircraft with the SAMs own motor likely pushes the whole stack beyond its thermal limits. You’d probably be hypersonic at that point.

 

[NMaude]

adding a booster to the forward speed of the aircraft with the SAMs own motor likely pushes the whole stack beyond its thermal limits. You’d probably be hypersonic at that point.

A long-range launch would be done at high altitude probably 40-45,000Ft in height where the air is very thin so aerothermal issues probably wouldn't be a problem. As for redesigning the Mk-114 for airborne launch I doubt that would be a serious issue.

 

[sferrin]

The differences in diameter between the booster and missile body are too much. Would be clunky as hell to mount.

If you're talking about the Mk-72 you are correct however the Mk-114 is only 14.1" in diameter (The Standard missile is 13.5") so that wouldn't be an issue.

Adding a Mk114 would barely be worth the effort. Besides, you do that and now it's too long to fit in a B-1Bs internal bay.

 

[NMaude]

Besides, you do that and now it's too long to fit in a B-1Bs internal bay.

Why would a B-1B being carrying an SM-6? It's a long-range heavy-bomber not an interceptor.

 

[sferrin]

Besides, you do that and now it's too long to fit in a B-1Bs internal bay.

Why would a B-1B being carrying an SM-6? It's a long-range heavy-bomber not an interceptor.

Fill one or two of its bays with SM-6 and let it have some fun.

 

[MihoshiK]

Besides, you do that and now it's too long to fit in a B-1Bs internal bay.

Why would a B-1B being carrying an SM-6? It's a long-range heavy-bomber not an interceptor.

Fill one or two of its bays with SM-6 and let it have some fun.

Nah, use the B-21 with it's stealth and metric assload of ECM and radar. It can be it's own AWACS, and the enemy would basically just be wondering where the hell all those missiles came from.

 

[Ainen]

SAMs aren't designed to receive a huge kick to their side (needed to reliably drop something this big from an aircraft). On top of that - SM-6 in particular is a VLS missile, meaning it probably won't like being dragged around without one.

If you want a long-range AIM-54 style AAM then have an air-launched SM-6 with Mk-114 booster (The Mk-114 burns for 5s producing 11,000Lb of thrust).

My point was it may not be possible.
For example - while Russia has shown sunburn under fighters on the shows - an actual attempt to launch one would've likely broken the missile in half - probably destroying the aircraft in the process.

It doesn't mean that it absolutely can't be done - Iran managed to fit the HAWKs somehow. But those are seriously old&sturdy missiles. most newer ones are much, much better optimized for structural weight.

Esp. VLS missiles, as those are normally stored in enclosed containers, and are only meant to launch in one specific way.