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

Will be a mostly wingless based design, a tail controlled body lift missile to reduce drag (and continue to improve maneuverability). AESA seeker, pulsed motor. Improves on the performance of the AIM-120D and provides a improved platform to continue upgrading while having the ability to be mounted on just about anything that could fire the AMRAAM prior to it.
Screenshot 2023-02-21 015503.png
 
Last edited:
Shusui said:
View attachment 702421
Click to expand...
Given how much more space efficient the AIM-260 profile is, I believe the NGAD could house more if it, if its designs drops any compatibility with AIM-120.

I believe USAF may realise that looking back, the F-22 would have been a better aircraft if it didn't had to be compatible with AIM-120A, a variant I think it never actually carried operational anyways.
 
lantinian said:
Shusui said:
View attachment 702421
Click to expand...
Given how much more space efficient the AIM-260 profile is, I believe the NGAD could house more if it, if its designs drops any compatibility with AIM-120.

I believe USAF may realise that looking back, the F-22 would have been a better aircraft if it didn't had to be compatible with AIM-120A, a variant I think it never actually carried operational anyways.
Click to expand...
Looking back, the competitor to the AIM-120 that shared a very similar design to the AIM-260 would have been a far better platform to start from. It was too ahead of it's time, though. We got here eventually.
 
Shusui said:
Looking back, the competitor to the AIM-120 that shared a very similar design to the AIM-260
Click to expand...

Unless you know something the rest of us don't, we have no idea what design AIM-260 uses. Literally all we know is that it fits inside the AIM-120D "box" and is probably in some way sight-sensitive.
 
Last edited:
TomS said:
Shusui said:
Looking back, the competitor to the AIM-120 that shared a very similar design to the AIM-260
Click to expand...

Unless you know something the rest of us don't, we have no idea what design AIM-260 uses. Literally all we know is that it fits inside the AIM-120D "box" and is probably in some way sight-sensitive.
Click to expand...
Well, now you know what the AIM-260 looks like. See the drawing at the top of the page. Above it is AMRAAM.
 
Shusui said:
TomS said:
Shusui said:
Looking back, the competitor to the AIM-120 that shared a very similar design to the AIM-260
Click to expand...

Unless you know something the rest of us don't, we have no idea what design AIM-260 uses. Literally all we know is that it fits inside the AIM-120D "box" and is probably in some way sight-sensitive.
Click to expand...
Well, now you know what the AIM-260 looks like. See the drawing at the top of the page. Above it is AMRAAM.
Click to expand...

Based on what evidence? One unproven person's statement?

Show me evidence, not conjecture.
 
TomS said:
Shusui said:
TomS said:
Shusui said:
Looking back, the competitor to the AIM-120 that shared a very similar design to the AIM-260
Click to expand...

Unless you know something the rest of us don't, we have no idea what design AIM-260 uses. Literally all we know is that it fits inside the AIM-120D "box" and is probably in some way sight-sensitive.
Click to expand...
Well, now you know what the AIM-260 looks like. See the drawing at the top of the page. Above it is AMRAAM.
Click to expand...

Based on what evidence? One unproven person's statement?

Show me evidence, not conjecture.
Click to expand...
Well, first the AIM-260A is the correct name of the missile in question. Sometime in March, 2021 I happened by a hanger and saw the missile up close. I'm not willing to share further information, you'll just see that what I've shared is accurate when they make some official announcement. Cool stuff, really.
 
Shusui said:
TomS said:

Based on what evidence? One unproven person's statement?

Show me evidence, not conjecture.
Click to expand...
Well, first the AIM-260A is the correct name of the missile in question. Sometime in March, 2021 I happened by a hanger and saw the missile up close. I'm not willing to share further information, you'll just see that what I've shared is accurate when they make some official announcement. Cool stuff, really.
Click to expand...
giphy_3.gif
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Shusui said:
Well, first the AIM-260A is the correct name of the missile in question. Sometime in March, 2021 I happened by a hanger and saw the missile up close. I'm not willing to share further information, you'll just see that what I've shared is accurate when they make some official announcement. Cool stuff, really.
Click to expand...

Oh, please. Yes, each variant of a missile or plane gets a suffix letter, but we still talk about the whole family by the base designation. No one has ever won a dispute with "actually it's F-15A not F-15."

More fundamentally, you say you just happened to see a sensitive, non-public missile while wandering (unescorted, apparently) around a USAF hangar. Either you're bullshitting or you're violating your NDA. I know which way I'm guessing, but either way, you should probably stop talking now.
 
TomS said:
Shusui said:
Well, first the AIM-260A is the correct name of the missile in question. Sometime in March, 2021 I happened by a hanger and saw the missile up close. I'm not willing to share further information, you'll just see that what I've shared is accurate when they make some official announcement. Cool stuff, really.
Click to expand...

Oh, please. Yes, each variant of a missile or plane gets a suffix letter, but we still talk about the whole family by the base designation. No one has ever won a dispute with "actually it's F-15A not F-15."

More fundamentally, you say you just happened to see a sensitive, non-public missile while wandering (unescorted, apparently) around a USAF hangar. Either you're bullshitting or you're violating your NDA. I know which way I'm guessing, but either way, you should probably stop talking now.
Click to expand...
I didn't know there was an argument, wasn't my intent to "win" it. No bullshit, no NDA violated. I waited quite some time to share the information because I was worried it would get me in trouble but... nah.
 
Last edited:
I'm wondering when the USAF is going to publicly unveil the AIM-260?
 
I didn't intend a threat, but a reminder. If you have a security clearance, you have a lifelong obligation to safeguard classified information until you know it is declassified. The Air Force has not released the appearance of the AIM-260 and has given indication that the appearance is classified (based on the fact that the missiles apparently need a Top Secret-level storage facility).
 
I get the impression the USAF is in no rush to share. They seem more tight fisted about weapon and platform details than they were during the Cold War. Presumably the AIM-260 will break cover once it is carried by a fighter without an internal bay if nothing else. That could be a while though.
 
The thing with mounting the AIM-260 in the F-22A is that once it's loaded onto its' launch-rail it can then be retracted into the main weapons-bay and the bay-doors closed concealing from outside view.
 
TomS said:
I didn't intend a threat, but a reminder. If you have a security clearance, you have a lifelong obligation to safeguard classified information until you know it is declassified. The Air Force has not released the appearance of the AIM-260 and has given indication that the appearance is classified (based on the fact that the missiles apparently need a Top Secret-level storage facility).
Click to expand...
I was informed the appearance, shape, size of the missile is just restricted. I am under no obligation of any kind to withhold that information.
 
Okay, it seems we're keeping our heads cool, but Shusui, please be careful with info like this. You are under the impression that it's restricted info, but if you're wrong you can be in trouble. Try and err on the side of caution with stuff like this.

Everyone else, when we finally see the AIM-260 we'll know for sure if Shusui was right or not. What he posted isn't unlikely, and frankly I'm interested if they kept the AMRAAM body size or went back to a larger diameter body like the Sparrow.
 
Last edited:
I'm of some opinion that reducing the diameter for a handful of applications like the wingtip rails on the F-16 was a minor mistake.
 
Colonial-Marine said:
I'm of some opinion that reducing the diameter for a handful of applications like the wingtip rails on the F-16 was a minor mistake.
Click to expand...
F-16 with sparrow-sized missiles had severe AA maneuvering limitations, esp. with asymmetrical payloads.
Given the size of the Viper fleet, it was the best option.
A larger missile (like Japanese AAM-4) always could be developed when needed, but after the end of the CW there was hardly any need to do so. AMRAAM in any case was a much larger success than its creators could even dream about.
 
Last edited:
Four AIM-260s in the F-22s weapons bays? Whoever wins the NGAD design contest better put in a big weapons bay if that is the case.
 
FighterJock said:
Four AIM-260s in the F-22s weapons bays? Whoever wins the NGAD design contest better put in a big weapons bay if that is the case.
Click to expand...
It's all speculation. We don't know what it looks like or how big it is. The AIM-260 that is.
 
It will be interesting to see when they finally reveal the AIM-260 sferrin, surely they cannot keep it classified for ever. It was the same thing with the AMRAAM when the USAF took some to Desert Storm back in 1991.
 
Shusui said:
Well, first the AIM-260A is the correct name of the missile in question. Sometime in March, 2021 I happened by a hanger and saw the missile up close. I'm not willing to share further information, you'll just see that what I've shared is accurate when they make some official announcement. Cool stuff, really.
Click to expand...

Did they by any chance also have the LRSO sitting around next to it?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Josh_TN said:
I get the impression the USAF is in no rush to share. They seem more tight fisted about weapon and platform details than they were during the Cold War. Presumably the AIM-260 will break cover once it is carried by a fighter without an internal bay if nothing else. That could be a while though.
Click to expand...

Without going into too much detail, there is a lot of public, unclassified information about the missile(s) in development out there. Anyone can get it if they know where to look or ask for it.

Unfortunately many "journalists" today do not actively perform research and instead wait for members of the public to post information on forums like this one, then turn that information into "articles". At the same time consumers wait to be fed those "articles" when they could have found better information from a few minutes of informed web searching.

I can think of a number of times that a for-profit "news" website "revealed" a program that was public and unclassified for years after some information was posted about it on this forum.

Back to the topic at hand, I am surprised that no one connected this:
with the AIM-260. The F-22 is set up for separation/release testing and has "soot" on a number of places.
 
MihoshiK said:
Okay, it seems we're keeping our heads cool, but Shusui, please be careful with info like this. You are under the impression that it's restricted info, but if you're wrong you can be in trouble. Try and err on the side of caution with stuff like this.

Everyone else, when we finally see the AIM-260 we'll know for sure if Shusui was right or not. What he posted isn't unlikely, and frankly I'm interested if they kept the AMRAAM body size or went back to a larger diameter body like the Sparrow.
Click to expand...
Same body size, has little nubs on the forward portion of the body instead of wings as mentioned...
 
Last edited:
quellish said:
Josh_TN said:
I get the impression the USAF is in no rush to share. They seem more tight fisted about weapon and platform details than they were during the Cold War. Presumably the AIM-260 will break cover once it is carried by a fighter without an internal bay if nothing else. That could be a while though.
Click to expand...

Without going into too much detail, there is a lot of public, unclassified information about the missile(s) in development out there. Anyone can get it if they know where to look or ask for it.
Click to expand...
The stuff I've found (not on the AIM-260) is usually in such strange places that I've only found it by accident. Almost always at subcontractor sites who either don't know any better or the stuff isn't actually classified. (RATTLRS, HyFly, and SM-3 Block IIB components.)
I don't know that I would have associated soot on an F-22 as belonging to AIM-260 though. At least with the AIM-120 it drops quite a ways before the motor ignites.

1688251914311.png
 
NMaude said:
sferrin said:
RATTLRS, HyFly, and SM-3 Block IIB components
Click to expand...

Could you provide some links please?
Click to expand...
I've posted them here in their respective topics. For example I was looking for Klune, for another reason, and found RATTLRS structural components on their site. Just saw this one. (Haven't seen it before.) That "Mach 5" is likely marketing as the missile was designed to test Mach 3 cruise.


WB-Klune_Slide2.jpg


klune-rttlrs.jpg
 
Moose said:
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.
Click to expand...
LREW is not the same program as AIM-260 JATM.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Moose said:
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.
Click to expand...
LREW is not the same program as AIM-260 JATM.
Click to expand...

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

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom