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

SM-6 is already the USN Swiss Army knife: AA, ABM, AShM, and ground attack. If it was fully integrated with F-18s combat system it could potentially fulfill all those roles still (well ABM might be problematic).
 
NMaude said:
I wonder if a dedicated anti-ship version of the SM-6 will be developed?

They have the SM-3 for that role.
Click to expand...
There is some kind of sub launched weapon called sea dragon that is said to be supersonic and based on existing missile; the general open source guess is that it’s a modified SM-6.

Aircraft are poor platforms for ABM anyway. The best use of air launched SM-6 would be A2A, though as an anti ship wait could also have its uses.
 
NMaude said:
I wonder if a dedicated anti-ship version of the SM-6 will be developed?
Click to expand...

Already developing Block 1b which directly addresses the ASuW capability with a beefier missile with a bigger boom and hypersonic speed, for two. Not sure if the Super Bug can bring back two SM-6s with the centerline tank/IRST pod but if it can that’s a potentially nasty way of augmenting and extending a carrier battle groups threat profile against a wide range of targets (surface, land, cruise missile, fighters, bombers, tankers, AWACS) depending on the specific SM-6 models that might be integrated. But yah an air launched 1b with the big motor and payload is pretty intriguing as a VLS equalizer. I’d even cut the USAF into the action if I were the USN and go hell bent for leather on a follow-on that gets the JATM guidance/seeker subsystem.
 
I wonder if any changes are made for that SM-6's as given the difference in operational envionment, some structural change could be necessary. Particularly in mountings. AAM application will subject the missile to G load and gust, gotta need good mounting point or it can be ripped off the wing.

Those changes may make the missile heavier, especially if they want to have unrestricted employment envelope, e.g launch at 6-8 G maneuver etc. Thus may compromise range.
 
TomS said:
SM2 Block IIIC
Click to expand...

Is that the version equipped an active radar seeker based on a repackaged AIM-120 seeker/antenna assembly?

stealthflanker said:
I wonder if any changes are made for that SM-6's as given the difference in operational envionment, some structural change could be necessary.
Click to expand...

I doubt much if any structural changes are needed, remember that the now retired AGM-78 Standard ARM was basically an SM-1 fitted the AGM-45 Shrike's seeker-assembly.
 
TomS said:
Easily. An SM-6 upper stage only weighs around 1600 lbs.
Click to expand...

Id think in this hypothetical one would want as much of the entire propulsion stack as possible, especially for the 1b. It could be a near-term meaningful augmentation to a coordinated massed Tomahawk Block V and LRASSM attack on a surface group.

But good to know from an aggressive BARCAP perspective you could really push off airborne threats with a four ship Super Bug formation with each element having a couple each of AIM-260 and intercept optimized RM-6. Thrown in a half a dozen gassed up MQ-25s, and you’ve got a hell of a counter air threat perhaps a thousand miles off the bow of the carrier.

In the background is the fact that the USN can actually mount and fire SM-6s off of Hornets. That’s here and now, however weird, as opposed to the JATM for example, their non overlapping profiles notwithstanding.
 
NMaude said:
I doubt much if any structural changes are needed, remember that the now retired AGM-78 Standard ARM was basically an SM-1 fitted the AGM-45 Shrike's seeker-assembly.
Click to expand...
Difference being that those were the rail-fired RIM-66/67 Standards, not VLS stack RIM156/174s.
 
Firefinder said:
tho at that point the missile be more like the SM2 Bl... 5 I think it was.

the Newest model with the Actuve seeker.
Click to expand...

Blk 3C is the upgrade kit for existing SM2 that makes it more or less SM-6 without a booster. I suspect whatever that hornet is carrying is based of a new build SM-6 with modifications for horizontal carry and release.
 
NMaude said:
Is that the version equipped an active radar seeker based on a repackaged AIM-120 seeker/antenna assembly?



I doubt much if any structural changes are needed, remember that the now retired AGM-78 Standard ARM was basically an SM-1 fitted the AGM-45 Shrike's seeker-assembly.
Click to expand...

SM-1 was rail launched, so it was easily modified for carriage and launch from under wing. VLS missiles would not have any horizontal mountings and might not structurally be able to support being carried that way. I suspect some kind of hard back and lugs need to be added and that this requires a new missile sub type.
 
Josh_TN said:
SM-1 was rail launched, so it was easily modified for carriage and launch from under wing. VLS missiles would not have any horizontal mountings and might not structurally be able to support being carried that way. I suspect some kind of hard back and lugs need to be added and that this requires a new missile sub type.
Click to expand...
that not exactly true.

the VLS do have lugs to secure it in the Canisters for shipping storage and the like. Which is often in horizontal position, with them having this side up on them. So the mounting hardware and strengthening IS there.

Whether or not it can take air combat maneuvers is the question.
 
Firefinder said:
the VLS do have lugs to secure it in the Canisters for shipping storage and the like. Which is often in horizontal position, with them having this side up on them. So the mounting hardware and strengthening IS there.
Click to expand...

Not to mention that Standard missiles are loaded into their canisters at the factory horizontally indicating there's some sort of built in canister rail.
 
Last edited:
If the AIM-260 is as large as the SM-6 missile then it will be a huge missile, obviously the NGAD will have to be designed around the AIM-260 if they are to carry six of the missiles internally.
 
FighterJock said:
If the AIM-260 is as large as the SM-6 missile then it will be a huge missile, obviously the NGAD will have to be designed around the AIM-260 if they are to carry six of the missiles internally.
Click to expand...

AIM-260 is known to have roughly the dimensions of AIM-120 and be compatible with F-22/35 internal carriage.
 
FighterJock said:
If the AIM-260 is as large as the SM-6 missile then it will be a huge missile, obviously the NGAD will have to be designed around the AIM-260 if they are to carry six of the missiles internally.
Click to expand...
It can't be. It has to fit in F-35 and F-22 bays.

Unless they're going for a single stage design with optional second stage.
 
So why the confusion with saying that the AIM-260 will be the same size as the SM-6?
 
FighterJock said:
So why the confusion with saying that the AIM-260 will be the same size as the SM-6?
Click to expand...
You've got an explanation twice. Do you need third one? You have semi official USAF rendering of AMRAAM-sized JATM. In your world _an AMRAAM replacement_ created for internal carriage won't fit into F-22 and F-35 weapon bays?
Use your logic more extensively please.
 
Wasn't their some info early saying that it will be half the length of AMRAAMs?
 
NMaude said:
Not to mention that Standard missiles are loaded into their canisters at the factory horizontally indicating there's some sort of built in canister rail.
Click to expand...
But note that the SM-6 missile is supported on all four sides while being inserted into the canister, and is primarily resting in a wide pad UNDER the missile body:

1717525936366.png
Screen capture from
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iqtfrs3FQLw


Here's an actual drawing of the interior of a Mk 21 canister for SM-2 Block IV -- SM-6 will be very similar. Sorta hard to decipher since the broke the canister in half, but the top segment is the aft/bottom end of the canister and the lower one is the forward/top end. Note that the booster has guide rails (the MK 72 has tracks along the sides of the casing that fit over these rails) but the missile forebody is not touching the canister except by the fin supports/flyout guides.

1717526736717.png

Compare to the MK 13 for SM-2 Blocks II and III. Here we see two rails, one called a launch rail and the other a guide rail. These missiles are actually more or less hanging off the launch rail in transit.

1717527278995.png

Drawings from here: https://www.tpub.com/gunners/44.htm
 
TomS said:
Easily. An SM-6 upper stage only weighs around 1600 lbs.
Click to expand...

Easily? The USN rarely uses 2000 lbs bombs because they can't be brought back if I'm not mistaken. For missions without pre-planned targets, Hornets could be seen carrying 500 or 1000 lbs bombs.
And who knows if an SM-6 can survive a carrier landing out of the box.
 
NMaude said:
They have the SM-3 for that role.
Click to expand...
You are comparing apples to oranges. SM-3 is exo-atmospheric and exo-atmospheric-only missile; this is pretty apparent if you know how the SM-3 KV, especially how it's sensor looks like.

SM-6 ABM is more akin to PAC-2 GEM-T and is endo-atmospheric-only.

Completely different roles.

Josh_TN said:
Aircraft are poor platforms for ABM anyway. The best use of air launched SM-6 would be A2A, though as an anti ship wait could also have its uses.
Click to expand...
Not if we are talking about boost phase intercept.


More about BPI, I don't know what the chances will be, but there have been multiple kinetic BPI intiatives that have come and go. Most notable are ALHTK and NCADE from early 2000s, but as late as 2019, MDA were requesting budget for ERWn, although it wasn't approved. So the idea itself is surely not dead at all. If anything, improved NCW, especially EOR and Forward Pass capabilities, improved sensors and rapid improvement in drones are making it more and more feasible.

I think BPI could potentially be a role that a modified, air-launched SM-6 can fulfill. It is already a far heavier, longer range missile compared to even the original ALHTK (PAC-3 based). Same with the JATM. Similar to NCADE which had a KV stage with added motor, JATM, with already longer-range than AMRAAM, could be a better NCADE-successor, which could be mounted internally for F-35s and NGADs.

I wouldn't be surprised if BPI variants based on either the SM-6 or JATM are being seriously considered, when I remind myself about hypersonic threats, especially against USN and USMC operating within second island chain and US bases in Korea and Japan. North Korean IRBM and ICBM threats are the other consideration as well.

If we overcome the time-sensitivity, BPI is way easier than mid-course or glide-phase intercept, afterall.

Imo, this is especially true when we consider that Korea, faced with North Korean and Chinese BM threats, is developing it's own BPI system since several years ago, although being delayed by the difficulties in developing the MUAV.

Could explain why the Super Hornet is carrying an SM-6, although I would agree that it is more likely for a possible A2A application against conventional fixed-wing targets. Probably against Chinese AEW and MPAs but who knows?

Just my two cents.

There's also a related thread on SPF as well :
 
Last edited:
eagle said:
Easily? The USN rarely uses 2000 lbs bombs because they can't be brought back if I'm not mistaken. For missions without pre-planned targets, Hornets could be seen carrying 500 or 1000 lbs bombs.
And who knows if an SM-6 can survive a carrier landing out of the box.
Click to expand...

Bringback for Super Hornet is generally stated as more than 9,000 lbs. Two SM-6 plus an empty centerline tank and a FLIR pod should be well below that.
 
The problem with fighter based ABMs is that only a relatively insignificant number of planes and missiles would be available at any given moment.
 
TomS said:
Bringback for Super Hornet is generally stated as more than 9,000 lbs. Two SM-6 plus an empty centerline tank and a FLIR pod should be well below that.
Click to expand...

I always wonder about Bring Back figures what the actual limit per pylon is though...there will be some serious stress on the lugs on landing. Might even have a cumulative value, you could do it 4-5 times but after that the particular pylon/aircraft/munition is limited.
 
The Harrier was notorious for it's bring back being zero especially for landings at sea where they generally had to drop any ordinance before doing a vertical landing. I wonder what the F-35B bring back weight is in comparison.
 
timmymagic said:
I always wonder about Bring Back figures what the actual limit per pylon is though...there will be some serious stress on the lugs on landing. Might even have a cumulative value, you could do it 4-5 times but after that the particular pylon/aircraft/munition is limited.
Click to expand...

Some weapons definitely have limits on flight hours and numbers of cats and traps before they need to be inspected or reworked. I expect there are inspection schedules for other parts based on the number of traps they have taken, for example.
 
FighterJock said:
The Harrier was notorious for it's bring back being zero especially for landings at sea where they generally had to drop any ordinance before doing a vertical landing. I wonder what the F-35B bring back weight is in comparison.
Click to expand...

That was one of the things that drove the RAF/RN's requirement for F-35B bring back...the the interventions in Yugoslavia and, particularly, Kosovo led to large parts of the Adriatic being covered with bombs....the cloud cover over Kosovo in particular meaning that many missions had to be scrubbed as ROE would not allow engagement. Harriers coming back to CVL's had to ditch weapons....This also led to the RAF's acquisition of Enhanced Paveway II and Enhanced Paveway III and the requirement for Paveway IV, which could all be dropped on GPS alone.

The early days of F-35B had Storm Shadow on the integration pathway, so bring back in particular for that munition was to the fore.....no-one wanted to be ditching £1m cruise missiles...(although with it being all weather capable that would be an extreme event, you don't set off on an armed reconaissance mission with Storm Shadow loaded....) that also appears to have driven the SRVL requirement, even after Storm Shadow integration was ditched 10+ years ago...

F-35B was originally required to VLBB (Vertical Langing Bring Back) of c5,000lb's including fuel in all flight regimes, including tropical conditions (where Harrier had issues). I believe that might be higher now.

Realistically, for the UK at least, a normal armed reconaissance mission with 2 Asraam, 2 Amraam/Meteor and 2 Paveway IV or 8 Spear variants should be able to be landed back on with VL. The only issues would occur when you're carrying internal AND external stores on the mid and inner wing pylon...
 
Last edited:
timmymagic said:
I always wonder about Bring Back figures what the actual limit per pylon is though...there will be some serious stress on the lugs on landing. Might even have a cumulative value, you could do it 4-5 times but after that the particular pylon/aircraft/munition is limited.
Click to expand...

Yes that is the question, not total bring back weight. As has been noted, 9000 lbs is plenty enough for fuel, usual stores and 2 SM6.
I could not find any source, but as I've said, I'm pretty sure 2000 lbs bombs can't be brought back for this reason, while 1000 and 500 lbs stores are ok. Meaning 1600 lbs could be too heavy for a single store. And that is before any potential reinforcing on the missile adds some pounds.
 
timmymagic said:
F-35B was originally required to VLBB (Vertical Langing Bring Back) of c5,000lb's including fuel in all flight regimes, including tropical conditions (where Harrier had issues). I believe that might be higher now.

Realistically, for the UK at least, a normal armed reconaissance mission with 2 Asraam, 2 Amraam/Meteor and 2 Paveway IV or 8 Spear variants should be able to be landed back on with VL. The only issues would occur when you're carrying internal AND external stores on the mid and inner wing pylon...
Click to expand...
Probably not higher, but lower due to weight growth. The margins are very tight. See my post about this here: https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/th...strike-fighter-jsf.17732/page-108#post-626309
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom