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

[bring_it_on]

Wish the headline were "LREW designated as AIM-260" or something like that rather than implying this program just appeared today. But, still, good to see it's gotten far enough to earn a designation. Agree with sferrin, though, "260" is well outside the convention and I see no reason why it should have been chosen.

LREW is not the same program as AIM-260 JATM.

Note the date of that post. Four years ago, the non-relationship between JATM and LREW wasn't necessarily clear.

Beyond The JATM, the Air Force has investments in systems, sub-systems or concept designs covering CAAM (Compact Air to Air Missile), Extended Range AAM (ERAAM), and LREW. Did I miss any other investment?

 

[TomS]

Wish the headline were "LREW designated as AIM-260" or something like that rather than implying this program just appeared today. But, still, good to see it's gotten far enough to earn a designation. Agree with sferrin, though, "260" is well outside the convention and I see no reason why it should have been chosen.

LREW is not the same program as AIM-260 JATM.

Note the date of that post. Four years ago, the non-relationship between JATM and LREW wasn't necessarily clear.

Beyond The JATM, the Air Force has investments in systems, sub-systems or concept designs covering CAAM (Compact
Air to Air Missile), Extended Range AAM (ERAAM), and LREW. Did I miss any other investment?

For known active program, there is Miniature Self-Defense Munition.

And the various others that led up to the current state (T3, etc.)

 

[Scott Kenny]

Potential for "Have Dash III"

I'd say so. As long as the overall shape fits inside an AIM-120D "box" there's no reason you couldn't design a missile with a trapezoidal fuselage relying on body shaping for lift. Sounds like a way to get more usable volume in the same OML, at the expense of extra wetted surface and probably extra structural weight.

Any thoughts on air to air “teaming”? F-22/35s in closer designating targets (within AIM-120 range) and F-15EX with external carriage of an ultra-long range AAM like this?

I believe that's the Raytheon LREW, not so much the AIM-260.

Though with the mass difference between Sparrows and AMRAAMs, I'm wondering if one or the other or both is more like a 550lb missile with a fatter rocket motor.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Curious, what are the odds that the AIM-260 operates on cryogenic fuel?

0% Could require bunkers because it's toxic.

That I would believe. Most good solid rocket fuels are all sorts of toxic. And only not radioactive by reason of low amounts of Carbon-14... (radioactive isotopes of Nitrogen are not long-lived enough to want to put into a rocket, half-lives measured in minutes)

Or use what ever the missiles like the Harpoon, Tomahawk, LRASM and Naval Strike missiles to power their turbojet engines. I imagine it need to be design in such a way that the risk of leaks and the like is minimized.

Good point. You can't rule out hybrids; hydrogen peroxide /JP-10 or HAN/JP-10. I think both of those could meet storability and insensitivity requirements.

High Test Peroxide is not insensitive... Any leak will burn personnel and may catch fire.

HAN, assuming you mean Hydroxylammonium nitrate, does not appear any more dangerous than Ammonium Nitrate and yet is toxic. Which lines up with the special handling requirements...

 

[MihoshiK]

High Test Peroxide is not insensitive... Any leak will burn personnel and may catch fire.

As someone who has had his shoes combust from walking through a puddle of 50% Hydrogen Peroxide (not even HTP), I can honestly say FUCK working with HTP in any place that isn't a very clean fume hood.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Wish the headline were "LREW designated as AIM-260" or something like that rather than implying this program just appeared today. But, still, good to see it's gotten far enough to earn a designation. Agree with sferrin, though, "260" is well outside the convention and I see no reason why it should have been chosen.

LREW is not the same program as AIM-260 JATM.

Note the date of that post. Four years ago, the non-relationship between JATM and LREW wasn't necessarily clear.

Yeah, I'd also missed that there was already a correction later that page. My bad.

 

[bring_it_on]

Wish the headline were "LREW designated as AIM-260" or something like that rather than implying this program just appeared today. But, still, good to see it's gotten far enough to earn a designation. Agree with sferrin, though, "260" is well outside the convention and I see no reason why it should have been chosen.

LREW is not the same program as AIM-260 JATM.

Note the date of that post. Four years ago, the non-relationship between JATM and LREW wasn't necessarily clear.

Beyond The JATM, the Air Force has investments in systems, sub-systems or concept designs covering CAAM (Compact
Air to Air Missile), Extended Range AAM (ERAAM), and LREW. Did I miss any other investment?

For known active program, there is Miniature Self-Defense Munition.

And the various others that led up to the current state (T3, etc.)

Yeah missed MSDM since I think its technically in funding for a few more years based on prior contracts. Of course T3, JDRADM et al are history now.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Wish the headline were "LREW designated as AIM-260" or something like that rather than implying this program just appeared today. But, still, good to see it's gotten far enough to earn a designation. Agree with sferrin, though, "260" is well outside the convention and I see no reason why it should have been chosen.

LREW is not the same program as AIM-260 JATM.

Note the date of that post. Four years ago, the non-relationship between JATM and LREW wasn't necessarily clear.

Found a post in the CUDA thread dated 2019 that identified LREW as being something different from AIM-260 and other AMRAAM follow ons. https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/lockheed-martin-cuda-air-to-air-missile.17332/post-341055

 

[Scott Kenny]

Hmm... If I had to lay down a wager as to how the AIM-260 will work, I'd say dual pulse solid motor, as that's something that's already well understood by most of the defense contractors in the US, who have either tinkered with them in house or have bought out a company that has done so. Boost pulse kicks it up high and fast, definitely north of Mach 3 and 50,000 feet, probably into the low hypersonic range, and glides along towards the engagement area above 85,000 feet on inertial guidance. Second pulse is either a slow-burning sustainer mode or a separate charge for terminal attack, but put money on the former. Use a datalink to update midflight, ranging from corrections for the inertial cruise guidance to put it into a position to track the enemy itself, to retasking the missile to a new, more threatening target, to possibly even commanding the missile to dump itself into the surface at high speed if the engagement needs to be called off. I'd also put money on a dual-mode seeker head, both active radar and IR, as that's the best way to counter both 4th and 5th gen fighters. Probably both working in tandem to maximize the chances for successful engagement.

I'm thinking a dual-grain, dual pulse motor. Boost, sustain, terminal boost. Or triple pulse, if they call it that. Second the dual-mode seeker, because it's going to need IR for stealthy aircraft but can get away with radar for older types. Probably the AIM-9X seeker if they're going off the shelf, though figuring out how to get both sensors into a single cone is going to be a pain. I can't see them doing a dolphin nose.

 

[Forest Green]

I understood the AIM-260 would be 2-stage.

 

[Scott Kenny]

If you think putting out an OTTO II fire is fun...try burning lithium.

Meh, just keep the rest of the weapons cool, it will eventually burn itself out.

Forced Air respirators, though, the combustion byproducts of OTTO II are toxic.

Guess who was on the OTTO Fuel detector kit?

Thought what they're describing was so awesome in the Mk50 that they ditched it and made the Mk54 with a more traditional propulsion system.

Didn't need the super deep diving performance of the Mk50 engine when working in the littorals, so they took the sensors of the Mk50 and stuck them on the engine from a Mk46.

 

[TomS]

Found a post in the CUDA thread dated 2019 that identified LREW as being something different from AIM-260 and other AMRAAM follow ons. https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/lockheed-martin-cuda-air-to-air-missile.17332/post-341055

That whole thread doesn't even mention AIM-260 or JATM at all, so I'm not sure it's making the point you think it is. Really, there's no need to snipe at someone over a small point like this four years ago.

I'll sometimes reply on an old post to add new information, but not to correct a mistake that's already been addressed later in the thread. What's the point of that?

Or triple pulse, if they call it that.

We've recently seen one missile described like this (Sky Spear).

 

[Scott Kenny]

Or triple pulse, if they call it that.

We've recently seen one missile described like this (Sky Spear).

I have got to wonder about what happens on a shorted engagement, when the terminal pulse fires while the sustain pulse is still burning...

 

[Josh_TN]

I understood the AIM-260 would be 2-stage.

I haven’t seen anything to suggest so.

 

[Josh_TN]

Or triple pulse, if they call it that.

We've recently seen one missile described like this (Sky Spear).

I have got to wonder about what happens on a shorted engagement, when the terminal pulse fires while the sustain pulse is still burning...

I had assumed dual pulsed weapons only ignited the second pulse if it was necessary/desirable?

 

[Shusui]

Hmm... If I had to lay down a wager as to how the AIM-260 will work, I'd say dual pulse solid motor, as that's something that's already well understood by most of the defense contractors in the US, who have either tinkered with them in house or have bought out a company that has done so. Boost pulse kicks it up high and fast, definitely north of Mach 3 and 50,000 feet, probably into the low hypersonic range, and glides along towards the engagement area above 85,000 feet on inertial guidance. Second pulse is either a slow-burning sustainer mode or a separate charge for terminal attack, but put money on the former. Use a datalink to update midflight, ranging from corrections for the inertial cruise guidance to put it into a position to track the enemy itself, to retasking the missile to a new, more threatening target, to possibly even commanding the missile to dump itself into the surface at high speed if the engagement needs to be called off. I'd also put money on a dual-mode seeker head, both active radar and IR, as that's the best way to counter both 4th and 5th gen fighters. Probably both working in tandem to maximize the chances for successful engagement.

I'm thinking a dual-grain, dual pulse motor. Boost, sustain, terminal boost. Or triple pulse, if they call it that. Second the dual-mode seeker, because it's going to need IR for stealthy aircraft but can get away with radar for older types. Probably the AIM-9X seeker if they're going off the shelf, though figuring out how to get both sensors into a single cone is going to be a pain. I can't see them doing a dolphin nose.

Nose-cone looked similar to AMRAAM but had elongated hexagonal indentations behind it where it flattened out in what seemed like no particular pattern and spaced out from each other.

 

[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).

I cannot remember exactly how many there are, or the exact spacing and all that obviously.

 

[bobbymike]

View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3FnVJ0ziRTE

 

[NMaude]

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.

If you take the SM-6 for example with its' Mk-72 booster it could be air launched if it were encapsulated Ala AIM-152 AAAM (Specifically the GD/Westinghouse version) style in a cylindrical launch-tube (Which would also function as a storage container) with discarding sabots to support the interceptor missile (Remember the SM-6 missile is 13.5" in diameter compared to the Mk-72's 21" diameter). It would be bulky and heavy with an F-15 able to carry two (One under each wing mounted on the inner wing-pylon).

 

[Josh_TN]

SM-2/6 would probably have a 200nm/300km range if launched at high altitude and speed anyway; why bother with the booster?

 

[Scott Kenny]

SM-2/6 would probably have a 200nm/300km range if launched at high altitude and speed anyway; why bother with the booster?

Maybe because the AIM-260 has that much range already? I mean, we know that the AIM120D is pushing 160-180km, and the AIM260 is supposed to have better range.

And then there's the LREW, which is a separate program with a 2-stage missile for even longer ranges yet.

If you're going to make someone carry a ~3300lb/1500kg missile, it had better be worth the weight!

 

[MihoshiK]

If you take the SM-6 for example with its' Mk-72 booster it could be air launched if it were encapsulated Ala AIM-152 AAAM (Specifically the GD/Westinghouse version) style in a cylindrical launch-tube (Which would also function as a storage container) with discarding sabots to support the interceptor missile (Remember the SM-6 missile is 13.5" in diameter compared to the Mk-72's 21" diameter). It would be bulky and heavy with an F-15 able to carry two (One under each wing mounted on the inner wing-pylon).

I do not think you'd want to use a launch tube. The exhaust flare of a booster is massive, and there would be a good chance of it damaging the launching plane.

SM-2/6 with or without boosters would be dropped before ignition.

 

[GK Dundas]

If you take the SM-6 for example with its' Mk-72 booster it could be air launched if it were encapsulated Ala AIM-152 AAAM (Specifically the GD/Westinghouse version) style in a cylindrical launch-tube (Which would also function as a storage container) with discarding sabots to support the interceptor missile (Remember the SM-6 missile is 13.5" in diameter compared to the Mk-72's 21" diameter). It would be bulky and heavy with an F-15 able to carry two (One under each wing mounted on the inner wing-pylon).

Some how the thought of a couple of sabot "petels " somewhere in front the of my A/C is .... discomforting.
I suspect that the likelihood of hitting one is extremely remote and of it doing damage just as remote....however.

 

[NMaude]

If you're going to make someone carry a ~3300lb/1500kg missile, it had better be worth the weight!

I could see an air-launched SM-3 with a Mk-72 booster attached as both an air-launched ABM and ASAT interceptor missile

I do not think you'd want to use a launch tube. The exhaust flare of a booster is massive, and there would be a good chance of it damaging the launching plane.

SM-2/6 with or without boosters would be dropped before ignition.

Either have an ejectable cylindrical launch tube stabilised with tail-fins or an expendable pylon-mounted weapons pod that ejects the SM-3/6 before the Mk-72 fires.

 

[bobbymike]

View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=m4AZoYwXwI8

 

[sferrin]

Wow. They snaked a random Boeing model for their thumbnail.

 

[NMaude]

Wow. They snaked a random Boeing model for their thumbnail.

What would've been appropriate? So far no declassified images and/or drawings of the AIM-260 have been published so far.

 

[sferrin]

What would've been appropriate? So far no declassified images and/or drawings of the AIM-260 have been published so far.

They could have at least generated original content.

 

[NMaude]

They could have at least generated original content.

If they did what would be your suggestion that they base it on?

 

[sferrin]

If they did what would be your suggestion that they base it on?

Their imagination.

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/aim-120-amraam-projects.127/page-3#post-486079

 

[NMaude]

Their imagination.

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/aim-120-amraam-projects.127/page-3#post-486079

Would a two-stage design necessarily have strakes on the booster?

 

[quellish]

What would've been appropriate? So far no declassified images and/or drawings of the AIM-260 have been published so far.

1. Has anyone asked for an image from the Air Force, classified or not?
2. There are images in this thread that are correct

 

[quellish]

Back in 2019 there were a number of articles with headlines such as "New AIM-260 Missiles Are So Secretive They Will Require A Custom Storage Bunker At Hill AFB" .

These were based on a few mentions in DoD budget documents of the need for a secure facility at Hill AFB for the JATM. While the press and to some extent the Air Force painted this as a need for secrecy, the reality is that it was a need for more space and a larger need to modernize facilities at Hill. There were other, similar contracts for modernizing or building new facilities at Hill.

Nonetheless, The Army Corps of Engineers put out a solicitation for the JATM facility. And.... no one answered. Nobody wanted to bid on the work for several years. It wasn't until last year that any visible progress was being made.

The location is 41.130085°, -111.997168°





All of this information is in the public domain and fairly easy to find and access.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Back in 2019 there were a number of articles with headlines such as "New AIM-260 Missiles Are So Secretive They Will Require A Custom Storage Bunker At Hill AFB" .

These were based on a few mentions in DoD budget documents of the need for a secure facility at Hill AFB for the JATM. While the press and to some extent the Air Force painted this as a need for secrecy, the reality is that it was a need for more space and a larger need to modernize facilities at Hill. There were other, similar contracts for modernizing or building new facilities at Hill.

Nonetheless, The Army Corps of Engineers put out a solicitation for the JATM facility. And.... no one answered. Nobody wanted to bid on the work for several years. It wasn't until last year that any visible progress was being made.

The location is 41.130085°, -111.997168°

View attachment 724012

View attachment 724013

All of this information is in the public domain and fairly easy to find and access.

Usually, that means that the companies/workers that have the clearance to work on the base are too busy with other work when that project is first proposed. Getting your company cleared for that construction work is expensive to do, and it has to happen on the company's dime, not on USGov.

Can't imagine a new construction company going through the clearance program just to bid on a contract and maybe not get selected...

 

[quellish]

Usually, that means that the companies/workers that have the clearance to work on the base are too busy with other work when that project is first proposed. Getting your company cleared for that construction work is expensive to do, and it has to happen on the company's dime, not on USGov.

Can't imagine a new construction company going through the clearance program just to bid on a contract and maybe not get selected...

That does not seem to be the case here. For example, two companies that have done similar work at Hill in the past were actively looking for other work at the time but did not bid on this project for some reason.

The contract, W9123821C0019, was awarded in 2021 to "NVE - HHI JV"

 

[sferrin]

1. Has anyone asked for an image from the Air Force, classified or not?
2. There are images in this thread that are correct

Which ones? Almost every image in the thread is either speculation or identified as some other program.

This thing?

 

[quellish]

How do we know the images are correct?

Well you can wait for the Air Force to give a press release to your favorite YouTube channel/marketing website/magazine or you can do a bit of research on your own while you wait

<shrug>

I can say with a high degree of confidence some of the information posted in this thread is accurate as far as the configuration and appearance.

 

[sferrin]

Well you can wait for the Air Force to give a press release to your favorite YouTube channel/marketing website/magazine or you can do a bit of research on your own while you wait

<shrug>

I can say with a high degree of confidence some of the information posted in this thread is accurate as far as the configuration and appearance.

Half the pictures that pop up with "AIM-260" are of a doodle I posted here and were ripped off. Everything I've seen so far is just speculation. No authoritative source posting a picture saying, "this is it".

Hell, someone even copied mine and stuck it in DCS.

 

[quellish]

No authoritative source posting a picture saying, "this is it".

“Authoritative sources” are in short supply these days, depending on what your standards are.

 

[sferrin]

“Authoritative sources” are in short supply these days, depending on what your standards are.

I suspect you have a lot better idea where to look for crumbs than I do. I'll have to wait. *shrugs*