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

If converting the SM-6 into a long rage air to air missile is not possible then why not design one from scratch? It would not be that difficult would it?
 
FighterJock said:
If converting the SM-6 into a long rage air to air missile is not possible then why not design one from scratch? It would not be that difficult would it?
Click to expand...
Yes, of course, just like any other A2A missile. There is no magic in LRAAMs since the 1960s.

Though, to be fair, until recently USAF wasn't thrilled with those for ~50 years; After dedicated NORAD interceptors were gone from procurement, it was almost exclusively US Navy and Russian AD thing*.
LRAAMs ... while very annoying to fight against (Iraq and Ukraine can prove this), are also very inconsistent, and it is generally hard to either predict the likelihood of successful engagement beforehand or react to failure: as the same two airforces can attest - claim:kill ratios of LRAAMs are among the worst, without any malice/intentional overclaim.

Basically - it's more of a defenders' denial tool instead of an attackers' air superiority one. When you aim for air superiority - you probably aim to get closer to targets and try to get verifiable sure kills. Preferably - as many attempts as possible: you don't get close&personal for free - thus opportunity must be exploited to the fullest. Large, heavy and expensive missiles stand in the way of this.

*not talking about meteor&other ramjets here - those are quite different weapons.
 
FighterJock said:
If converting the SM-6 into a long rage air to air missile is not possible then why not design one from scratch? It would not be that difficult would it?
Click to expand...
It's just a matter of wanting it enough. They had the two designs for the Phoenix replacement and passed on both, deciding AIM-120 was sufficient. Now that it's getting long in tooth they're building new.
 
FighterJock said:
If converting the SM-6 into a long rage air to air missile is not possible then why not design one from scratch? It would not be that difficult would it?
Click to expand...

No one has said this isn't possible. The fact that they have hung the SM-6 upper stage on a Super Hornet suggests that it's even being considered. Now, SM-6 upper stage plus a booster is probably much harder and unneeded.

As for designing long-range AAMs from scratch, of course it's possible. It's even being done, quietly. AIM-260 itself reportedly significantly outranges AIM-120. And there's whatever came out of LREW (if anything). Money is still going on into long-range AAMs, but it's not being highly publicized these days.
 
I did not know that the AIM-260 outranges the AIM-120 sferrin, add on a booster rocket on the AIM-260 and you have a ready made long range missile.
 
Just to clarify things, you can choose to fly a missile under the wing of an Aircraft to test their sensors, datalinks, structure or internal components in realistic conditions.
For that, you would chose an available aircraft in your fleet that had already flown similar load with a representative geometry (wetted surface) and that can fly similar patterns, easily.
It doesn't imply that this missile will be used by that airframe...

Remember how Mustang were flown with early supersonic airplane models.
 
TomcatViP said:
Just to clarify things, you can choose to fly a missile under the wing of an Aircraft to test their sensors, datalinks, structure or internal components in realistic conditions.
For that, you would chose an available aircraft in your fleet that had already flown similar load with a representative geometry (wetted surface) and that can fly similar patterns, easily.
It doesn't imply that this missile will be used by that airframe...

Remember how Mustang were flown with early supersonic airplane models.
Click to expand...

Sure, it's possible. The way this shape is painted suggests it's a flight object, not just a carry payload. But it could be a way to exercise some aspect of the SM-6 envelope that they can't do from a surface launch at White Sands or Hawaii, I suppose. And might be cheaper than using a full on DDG for an at-sea test launch.

But my money is on it being at least an experiment into using air-launched SM-6 operationally.
 
TomS said:
FighterJock said:
I did not know that the AIM-260 outranges the AIM-120 sferrin, add on a booster rocket on the AIM-260 and you have a ready made long range missile.
Click to expand...

For all we know, AIM-260 had enough range (it is said to outrange PL-15). And LREW is probably a large multi-stage AAM.
Click to expand...
I think in the long run HACM will fulfill the role of very long ranged anti tanker/AWACS/bomber.
 
Josh_TN said:
I think in the long run HACM will fulfill the role of very long ranged anti tanker/AWACS/bomber.
Click to expand...

I haven't seen anything suggesting that HACM has an A-A role. But maybe I missed something?
 
TomS said:
Josh_TN said:
I think in the long run HACM will fulfill the role of very long ranged anti tanker/AWACS/bomber.
Click to expand...

I haven't seen anything suggesting that HACM has an A-A role. But maybe I missed something?
Click to expand...
It is just a personal guess. I assume it wouldn't be maneuverable enough for fighter targets but I could easily see it having a capability against multi engine aircraft. I'm assuming it will have some kind of terminal seeker on top of INS/GPS navigation, at least in a later version (like PrSM incr 2).

EDIT: The ASALM also was envisioned with an anti AWACs role as part of its mission as a SRAM replacement, though obviously its pretty easy to hit an airborne target with a nuclear weapon. But I would think HACM could easily use terminal seeker technology from an AAM - its flight regime isn't that drastically different in terms of top speed, just somewhat longer exposure time.
 
Last edited:
Josh_TN said:
TomS said:
Josh_TN said:
I think in the long run HACM will fulfill the role of very long ranged anti tanker/AWACS/bomber.
Click to expand...

I haven't seen anything suggesting that HACM has an A-A role. But maybe I missed something?
Click to expand...
It is just a personal guess. I assume it wouldn't be maneuverable enough for fighter targets but I could easily see it having a capability against multi engine aircraft. I'm assuming it will have some kind of terminal seeker on top of INS/GPS navigation, at least in a later version (like PrSM incr 2).

EDIT: The ASALM also was envisioned with an anti AWACs role as part of its mission as a SRAM replacement, though obviously its pretty easy to hit an airborne target with a nuclear weapon. But I would think HACM could easily use terminal seeker technology from an AAM - its flight regime isn't that drastically different in terms of top speed, just somewhat longer exposure time.
Click to expand...

This is from a 1978 document.

5CA9C4D5-5235-47F4-BBF9-9008FE047D64.png
 
I wonder when the AIM-260 will be publicly displayed?
 
I have to admit I'm surprised by this. I had always envisioned the CCAs carrying something more like Peregrine or Cuda in larger numbers across shorter ranges and the longer ranged, more bespoke AAMs going to the manned platforms. That the CCAs are going to be packing the longest range BVRs (or at least the longest ranged AAM we know of) seems to indicate they will have a sensor suite capable of aiming them - which implies to me a higher end platform than I was envisioning for the CCA/NGAD program.
 
Josh_TN said:
I have to admit I'm surprised by this. I had always envisioned the CCAs carrying something more like Peregrine or Cuda in larger numbers across shorter ranges and the longer ranged, more bespoke AAMs going to the manned platforms. That the CCAs are going to be packing the longest range BVRs (or at least the longest ranged AAM we know of) seems to indicate they will have a sensor suite capable of aiming them - which implies to me a higher end platform than I was envisioning for the CCA/NGAD program.
Click to expand...

It doesn't necessarily imply that the CCAs will be able to independently guide JATM. They could be functioning as remote magazines to engage targets sensed by NGAD or some sort of offboard sensors. Basically an airborne counterpart of CEC.
 
The article also mention the possibility of one of them among a fleet to have targeting sensors.

But we should focus on the fact that JATM will be the perfect fit for a deep penetrating aircraft that want to plink EA while staying undetected.

A deep penetrating aircraft can't have cheap drone all around him as they can't match its low observability. Those would need to lagg far behind. Hence the concept.
 
I like the fact that the NGAD would use its sixth generation technology and sensors to detect enemy targets and then transmit them to the CCA to launch missiles at the enemy targets. The NGAD would be operating as a mini-AWACS in that situation, some what like the MiG-31 does at present.
 
I guess it comes down to how low of a signature the CCA has vs the manned component when it comes to who is at the front. I'd expected the CCAs to operate out front as the fall guy with a large number of small BVRs, with the NGAD manned carrying long range AAMs and acting as the primary sensor processing node, along with a capability to actively illuminate at long range across a tight mean for weapon delivery tracks if needed. I would think the CCA, at least some of them, would have a radar of lesser value and be the primary search emitter (when necessary), along with ESM and IR sensors. But if the CCA is going to employ longer ranged AAMs, then either one of its number has a longer ranged sensor or some other platform will be providing that data (to include the manned platform). I think it is quite possible there is another layer of sensor platforms in front of CCA, either a wide formation of passive sensors on something smaller and more disposable (UTAP-22 or XQ-58 type platform) or something akin to the "RQ-180" (or RQ-180 itself) providing wide area passive sensing with optional active target tracks.
 
If the AIM-260 did not exist, the CCA's would have probably carried what was available, which would have been the AIM-120. We know both are of the same size and form factor so it makes sense as to the CCAs being able to carry and be equipped with, for some missions, with the AIM-260 since it will replace the AMRAAM. If in some cases they will act as adjunct magazines for NGAD, F-35 etc then it makes sense for them to carry similar weapons.
 
I think my disconnect is that the CCA is going to be a larger and more expensive aircraft than I originally envisioned for the unmanned portion of NGAD.
 
I think this quote by Lt. Gen. Moore might be relevant: "We see three kinds of basic mission sets for collaborative Combat Aircraft. The first is the ability to augment the combat force as shooters. The second is the ability to conduct electronic warfare and the third is the ability to be sensors in the battle space(...) We'll concentrate first on the ability for CCA to augment shooters and to be shooters themselves" (https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zo...o-air-missiles-to-arm-future-air-force-drones)

That might mean, that the early CCA's will be a semi-stealthy tethered drone that acts like an enhanced magazine with maybe an irst capability... It would make a lot of sense to integrate the aim-260 on such a platform...
 
Josh_TN said:
I think my disconnect is that the CCA is going to be a larger and more expensive aircraft than I originally envisioned for the unmanned portion of NGAD.
Click to expand...

That's probably partly because till about a year ago, this class of systems was framed as attritable which was basically a relatively cheap system with cheap sub-systems that you could use a few times and throw away. The broader and better defined CCA effort will probably have room for some of those systems, but also others which would basically be fighter sized and in fact may be larger depending on the mission. They may even cost as much as a manned aircraft with the major savings being a result of OPEX since they aren't required to spend XXX training hours so you can have a smaller fleet. If one or more of these are essentially adjunct magazines for NGAD, then they would almost have to carry similar weapons.
 
I've read credible rumor that AIM-260 will have a maximum range between 250KM-300KM and a maximum operational altitude of 33KM.
 
I am still incredibly pissed at the -260 naming convention.
Can't we all just agree that the Tr-Service designation system is good, and pulling random numbers out of our asses is quite silly?
Has there even been a given reason for that number? Of all the numbers in the world, why that one?
 
HyFonic said:
I am still incredibly pissed at the -260 naming convention.
Can't we all just agree that the Tr-Service designation system is good, and pulling random numbers out of our asses is quite silly?
Has there even been a given reason for that number? Of all the numbers in the world, why that one?
Click to expand...
F-35, B-21, (did THAAD ever get a number), KC-46, etc.
 
I am also annoyed at the current state of the USAF naming system, why did they call it the AIM-260 surely it should have been AIM-130? The next available number available in the sequence after the AIM-120. It is just so stupid.
 
NMaude said:
TomS said:
Looks like maybe it did, another hugely out of sequence one -- MIM-401.

https://www.dau.edu/cop/ammo/Pages/THAAD.aspx
Click to expand...

It looks like some lazy DoD bureaucrat took the tri-services designation for the Patriot and transposed the 1 and 4 in it.
Click to expand...

I'm beginning to suspect that they are reserving blocks of higher 3-digit missile designations for special purposes. The lead digit may be a reference to the sponsor or something, rather than being strictly in sequence.

Ground-Based Interceptor has also not received a public designation, AFAIK. I would not be surprised to see it designated as LIM-402 or some such.
 
TomS said:
Ground-Based Interceptor has also not received a public designation, AFAIK. I would not be surprised to see it designated as LIM-402 or some such.
Click to expand...

We can only say for certain that it's LIM-XXXA, XXX being what ever the number is.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom