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

Combat-Master said:
Never thought we'd see jousting this half of the millennia
View attachment 769212
Click to expand...

I wonder if someone has named the aircraft "Pinocchio";):D?

In regards to creating a new LRAAM why didn't they instead resurrect the AIM-152 AAAM (Specifically the GD/Westinghouse version) and give it a 21st century tech update?
 
NMaude said:
I wonder if someone has named the aircraft "Pinocchio";):D?

In regards to creating a new LRAAM why didn't they instead resurrect the AIM-152 AAAM (Specifically the GD/Westinghouse version) and give it a 21st century tech update?
Click to expand...
That would be the LREW program, the AIM-260 is simply an AMRAAM replacement in AMRAAM form factor.
I suppose we will know more once information pertaining to LREW has leaked like JATM has.
 
Josh_TN said:
I think you are overthinking things. I think this just an RFI, and IMO, given the explicit price ceiling and stated target set, these are weapons designed for non fighter targets.
Click to expand...
I certainly hope so.

But I do like the idea of HalfRAAMs to greatly increase the stealthy weapons capacity of an airframe.


Ozair said:
I think less for non fighter targets but more for attritable aircraft both carriage and targeted. If you consider an AMRAAM D is approaching $1.5 mill a copy then having weapons that are a 5th that cost makes losing that weapon, when equipped on a CCA, easier to bear. It also means you don't waste a 1.5m weapon engaging a platform that isn't that much costlier.

I'd also suggest it is a pathway to increased production of weapons from alternate sources.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure I support the idea of missiles specifically for carriage by attritional airframes. Remember, the assumption around any combat flight is that you're expending all ammunition, whether the carrying airframe makes it back or not.

But missiles specifically for engaging attritional targets makes sense.
 
Makes total sense. Affordable mass is needed everywhere especially AAMs given the goal of a couple hundred missile armed CCAs. USAF wants to implement its new design and acquisition model everywhere, especially here, and this could be an on ramp to do it. Let LM and Raytheon focus on the high side and stand up a robust base that will compete intensely for the much higher volume low side of the missile mix. Cheap Halfraams and Amraams make a lot of sense for CCAs and homeland defense 4th gen fighters, freeing up D3 and 260 for more fun platforms.
 
raptor82 said:
Searched on Instagram& Flickr, and found that it first appeared in 2021…….

https://flic.kr/p/2kVvb5z
View: https://flic.kr/p/2kVvb5z
Click to expand...

Yup, it took only 4 years for the “aviation press” to notice. Aircraft have been flying with the AIM-260 avionics package visible in public airspace for years.

I’m sure Sandboxx etc have just been taking their time making a YouTube video about it.

I wonder what else has been in plain sight and missed
 
quellish said:
Yup, it took only 4 years for the “aviation press” to notice. Aircraft have been flying with the AIM-260 avionics package visible in public airspace for years.

I’m sure Sandboxx etc have just been taking their time making a YouTube video about it.

I wonder what else has been in plain sight and missed
Click to expand...

Seems like a lot more than just aviation press didn't notice for all this time, it flew under basically everyone's radar
 
bring_it_on said:
;)

View attachment 769345
Click to expand...
mwaahahahah

In my deep dive i did find some info on JATM... but only things that could be reasonably inferred already, or is already known (JATM JPO is at Eglin, JATM TPO is at China Lake, it's an ACAT ID program, in DT, OT, and LF, etc.), but something scored me a phone call from DISA J6 C4E yesterday morning that I wasn't a big fan of, so it might be time for me to lay off the hunt for AIM-174 and AIM-260 info
 
eagle said:
Maybe I'm missing something, but the photo of N804X is from 04/2021, the linked post is from 06/2023. Not bad, but 2 years difference, not what I would call "for all this time". :D
Click to expand...

The linked post is @Shusui describing what he observed. A number of forum members were... less than enthusiastic about his posting. Other members were well aware of what AIM-260 looked like at the time and dropped subtle hints (or did not participate in the stone throwing).

But anyway....

page 10.png
 
I personally would like to see the 6th gen platforms have larger weapons bays just to ensure we dont limit ourselves to the 120's footprint. Bigger missiles, lighter materials and better seekers is the way to go - at least if we are talking the high part of the high low mix of munitions
 
NMaude said:
As capable as the AIM-120 is it is well past time that something new was developed to replace it and the USAF/USN shouldn't restrict themselves by insisting that it fits into the AIM-120's "Footprint" (12ft long by 7" in diameter).
Click to expand...
So if they get a bigger, heavier weapon how are they going to integrate it onto the existing aircraft designed around these constraints?
 
red admiral said:
So if they get a bigger, heavier weapon how are they going to integrate it onto the existing aircraft designed around these constraints?
Click to expand...
If we start now by making IWBs bigger on next gen platforms then at a certain point this problem isnt a problem anymore. On top of that, if they really intend on recompeting CCAs and/or NGAD in its entirety then this becomes even less of a problem.

Using existing fighters as constraints AAMs is also a poor reason to not go bigger in the future. They dont all have to be carried in IWBs when there's still a substantial fleet of upgraded 4th gens flying well into the future in addition to external racks and B21s. Get the larger AAMs into service and there will be airframes to accomodate them in IWBs the future. Thats certainly what the Chinese have been doing.
 
Last edited:
Reddington777 said:
Using existing fighters as constraints AAMs is also a poor reason to not go bigger in the future.
Click to expand...

Existing fighters to include the premier air to air figther in the USAF (F-22) are a very good reason to build something that is a drop in for the AIM-120 in the same form factor.

There is obviously no constraint on them seeking longer ranged air to air missiles as is evident from the fielding of the AIM-174B by the Navy, and probably a few other efforts looking at longer ranged air - air weaponry for both the Navy (AIM-174 has been described as 'interim' on this forum) and the Air Force. Similarly there is also some interest in increasing magazine size. Both these requirements would lead one to believe that air - air missiles both larger and smaller than AIM-120/AIM-260 are likely being developed for use across a whole host of applications (legacy fighter aircraft, next generation fighter aircraft, CCAs, longshot etc).

Personally, I would like to see an Air to Air weapon that is IWB compliant for future aircraft in the roughly ERINT class (dimensions wise).

1746881720173.png
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom