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

Anything with a GPS/INS can be used in an air to ground role and I expect most any AESA can be made to recognize a vehicle target against a ground background with sufficient software changes. SM-6 has an anti ship and ground attack mode. So it is possible, IMO. It would require extra development work, so I do not think it likely, as the warhead would be very sub optimally sized and the platform very expensive to use in that role.
 
Training_Dummy said:
@JJPET two more things:

- w clever engineering can’t you “have your cake and eat it too” wrt to rapid time to kill & expanded NEZ AND long-range, especially if launched from decent altitude?
Click to expand...
Total Energy (chemical energy from the rocket motor, potential energy from altitude, kinetic energy at release speed) is all you have available to work with. Range, NEZ, time to intercept are all compromises based on the total energy available at launch. The only way you can increase everything across the board is to increase the total energy; for a new AAM, that generally means new rocket motor with more propellant.

But even if you increase the chemical energy inherent in your missile, the performance increase is not guaranteed to be synergistic. For example, you can, always build a bigger missile to pack more propellant, but that would make your missile bigger and heavier and thus less maneuverable or require bigger control effectors to apply the same amount of Gs to turn the missile, so in this cas you might trade range for the cross range width of your NEZ. Engineering is always about tradeoffs.
 
@ncc81701 you raise many good points. I was merely reflecting on reports that certain launch (and loft) profiles for AIM-120D3 may be battery limited, rather than the aero ballistic parameters as defined by the chemistry and layout of that missiles motor. I’m excited to see what trades LM made in designing JATM, especially propulsion.
 
Training_Dummy said:
@JJPET two more things:

- w clever engineering can’t you “have your cake and eat it too” wrt to rapid time to kill & expanded NEZ AND long-range, especially if launched from decent altitude?

- courld smart fuzing coupled with advanced end-game seeking and target recognition confer a secondary air-to-surface, anti-AD role?

Crazy?

Edit: one more thing, not sure this is hit to kill. I think it can tailor a blast pattern that maximizes the impact of a smaller warhead with LE elements. Multimode, CM resistant terminal seeking that incorporates target image analysis and missile & target energy state to design a tailored blast that maximizes the missiles vector. Or something like that.
Click to expand...
kinda once you've used up the missiles energy it cant gain more the NEZ doesn't increase with two stages but rather endgame survivability rapidly decreases for the adversary aircraft since instead of facing a missile at mach 2 its at mach 3. i do believe this missile is just unbeatable given your within range which seems to be well in excess of 300km depending on battery life. to my testing it can go as far out as 575km in a hornet scenario with 600 seconds of battery life. given that would be a huge battery it seems a bit unrealistic and they all had about the same endgame of mach 2~. though id imagine it would hold fuel for better endgame situations. News to me though, according to Naval Air Warfare Center Weapons Division (NAWCWD) 2023 they have a propellant or some grain that enables 1.5x the range compared to previous ones (see link below 1st page top right). this could be quite a change and may even expand its range to greater than 400km given it has enough battery. i'll post some new pictures soon with a calculated version with the updated grain but it has a 80 second faster TTK at 300km range which is pretty substantial.

also yes doing some more research and new developments the US is working on a directional warhead which is supposedly smaller and more effective compared to previous warheads. which also makes me believe the aim260 is infact not a hit to kill weapon and instead that technology will be leveraged in missiles like the CUDA and its siblings

also i believe the aim260 may feature thrust vectoring, it differs from the aim9x though by not using fins behind the motor but instead thrusters at the rear in the casing of the missile. i believe this is the case so the missile can turn at high altitudes and the reduction in thrust doesn't happen unless thrust vectoring is seen as needed to score a kill unless i'm wrong in that. again it may or may not have it and i cant see any particular areas where that system is housed though

 
Last edited:
I was thinking yes you’d want to push more power through the seekers but that a GaN AESA, more efficient electronics and better and/or bigger batteries would allow for a longer “run time”, to say nothing of bigger or “energetic” motors (of which there is hopefully more to say in time!).
 
JJPET said:
News to me though, according to Naval Air Warfare Center Weapons Division (NAWCWD) 2023 they have a propellant or some grain that enables 1.5x the range compared to previous ones (see link below 1st page top right). this could be quite a change and may even expand its range to greater than 400km given it has enough battery. i'll post some new pictures soon with a calculated version with the updated grain but it has a 80 second faster TTK at 300km range which is pretty substantial.

[...]

Click to expand...
50% greater range is terrifying.

The admitted range of an AIM120D3 is ~150km. Stick that new propellant into an AMRAAM and you'd get a range of 225km.

And the AIM260 is assumed ~300km before this new propellant, +50% means ~450km range. That's stepping on the toes of the AIM174, which has an admitted range of 500km!
 
joshjosh said:
Where does this 300km figure come from?
Click to expand...
In that specific case, straight out of my butt.

There was some discussion about how the AIM-120D-3 was just short of the AIM-260 RFP threshold range. Which suggests that the minimum acceptable "threshold range" for the AIM-260 was ~175-200km (public numbers, actual ranges are better).

What is the word they use for the actual intended stats of a project? Edit: "Objective" is the word I was looking for.

Anyways, the difference between the threshold numbers and what they want out of the operational system is typically +25%. Now we're at ~250km public-numbers range.

+50% to that is 375km.

Public numbers. Not the actual numbers.


quellish said:
There are public records which state a range that is not 300km. Why not take a few minutes to find them?
Click to expand...
Because I'm a dumbass.



quellish said:
Or just ask yourself why is named the AIM-260
Click to expand...
I find it hard to believe that the 260 in the name refers to the range in kilometers.
 
Last edited:
Scott Kenny said:
There was some discussion about how the AIM-120D-3 was just short of the AIM-260 RFP threshold range. Which suggests that the minimum acceptable "threshold range" for the AIM-260 was ~175-200km (public numbers, actual ranges are better).

Anyways, the difference between the threshold numbers and what they want out of the operational system is typically +25%. Now we're at ~250km public-numbers range.

+50% to that is 375km.
Click to expand...
I don't think you can simply "add 50% because it might also use new propellant," as if the AIM-260 program was established, built a missile, and then later changed the propellant. New propellant might have already been part of the way it achieved longer range.

"This journalist asked how the AIM-260 achieves significantly greater range than the AIM-120D, yet is closely similar in size. Asked if the weapon uses a more efficient motor or propellant or if it perhaps employs a smaller weapon to accommodate additional fuel volume, Genatempo replied that each of those options are in the trade space for achieving greater range."
theboresight.blogspot.com

Writing on the Wall: The New AIM-260 JATM?

Air Power Focus. Myths versus realities in the use of air power from the past to the present day.
theboresight.blogspot.com theboresight.blogspot.com
 
I would assume that AIM-260 already includes any propellant upgrades that were available at the time of its design freeze, provided such materials could be produced at scale. USAF is very much waking up to the fact that speed of production is a major consideration on top of cost.and capability. So something like “burnt wire ends” might be included and something like CL-20 might be rejected, as an example. But whatever SRM improvements were practical likely is already part of the range increase, along with more propellent judging by the bands.
 
Scott Kenny said:
50% greater range is terrifying.

The admitted range of an AIM120D3 is ~150km. Stick that new propellant into an AMRAAM and you'd get a range of 225km.

And the AIM260 is assumed ~300km before this new propellant, +50% means ~450km range. That's stepping on the toes of the AIM174, which has an admitted range of 500km!
Click to expand...
Reread that bullet.

“The Next-Generation Highly Loaded Grain project team has matured the technology and seeded the development of future mission-modular propulsion systems that can increase weapon ranges by up to 1.5x while maintaining inner boundaries for short-range and time-critical missions.”

Not a new propellant, but a new grain configuration. Based on the AIM-260 range increase and maintaining the AIM-120 form factor, I would assume that AIM-260 already uses an earlier version of that type of grain. CL-20 has been tested in propellants and works well, but the US production capacity hasn’t increased to support the utilization in missile production. Propellant chemistry has advanced in incremental, evolutionary improvements over the last 30+ years rather than radical increases in performance.
 
IMO, most of AIM-260 performance increases likely come from increases in propellant/electronics and warhead size reduction than any propellant advances. I am sure any advantages in modern materials that were scalable were adopted, but I suspect “more” was the predominant part of the solution.
 
I wouldn't be surprised at all if the AIM-260's rocket-motor had a two or three pulse burn-profile.
 
I’d be shocked if it didn’t have two pulses; I’d be surprised if it had more.
 
One of my big questions about JATM (besides what those two rings of patch apertures are for) is can it relight the motor just once after the coast phase for end game or will it be able to start and stop the motor repeatedly to dynamically tailor the thrust profile? There was a post in this thread about a new electronic based motor ignition approach that appeared capable of the latter. There have also been posts in this thread about more powerful propellant technologies. It all comes down to the cost x time x volume matrix when it comes to making the trades on seeker, fuzing, warhead, and motor sophistication in an AMRAAM form factor. To say nothing of keeping high volume manufacturability (even if you don’t have plans for massive volumes) a top parameter in the design ethos of JATM.

There is probably a real sweet spot of seeker complexity, a smart fuzed, directable WH w lethal enhancers and the right mix of battery and motor sizes given the AMRAAM footprint that will be hilariously obvious in hindsight once program details become more publicly discussed.
 
NMaude said:
I wouldn't be surprised at all if the AIM-260's rocket-motor had a two or three pulse burn-profile.
Click to expand...
Combined response:
Josh_TN said:
I’d be shocked if it didn’t have two pulses; I’d be surprised if it had more.
Click to expand...
I'm expecting Boost-Sustain-(optional pause) Terminal Pulse. So technically dual-pulse.

I don't see a reason to have more than that.



DWG said:
Stopping it on demand is going to be a nice trick!
Click to expand...
Stopping it on demand has been demonstrated operationally since Trident II.

Restarting after it you explosively blow out some panels is a challenge.
 
DWG said:
Stopping it on demand is going to be a nice trick!
Click to expand...

I am guessing it is a simple two pulse motor with a standard dual grain initial pulse and a second, much smaller boost pulse for an “off rail” level of end game kinetic energy. Alternatively the second pulse might be used as a range extender/tine of flight reduction measure mid course for none maneuvering targets (tankers, AEW, etc).

The more exotic throttling propellants seem quite new and I would not expect them to be available before AIM-260 design freeze or available for mass production yet. Dual pulse probably provides most of the needed NEZ capability.
 
Forest Green said:
Hmmm... I thought it just meant 2 propellant types with different impulses??
Click to expand...

There's that but with a two-pulse SRM the respective propellant-grains (And associated igniters) are separated by a non-flammable barrier.
 
Forest Green said:
Hmmm... I thought it just meant 2 propellant types with different impulses??
Click to expand...

That I believe is “dual grain “, which is different from “dual pulse”. So most AAMs have a hard burn for acceleration than transitions to a sustainer grain as one single rocket motor. Dual pulse means there’s a physical separation between two rocket motor fuels and the first one executes and the second is held for later firing as needed and determined by the on board logic.
 
Let's not go into all the details on motor design and going way off-topic. That should go to missile motor discussion thread.

That said I think a 3-pulse is possible seeing how the Stunner missile has been around for a while and having the same frame size. Also there had been some cooperation on a derivative with the SkyCeptor. Israel has also been working on an air-launched version for a while.
I do agree thrust throttling is a bit to early in developement but seeing how gas generators are now being used by many new coming designs for vector thrust. And the AIM-260 seems to be using it in the rear. They both would tie in well with each other by combining the gas generation section. This would make the combined design more complex, though.
 
Seragina said:
Let's not go into all the details on motor design and going way off-topic. That should go to missile motor discussion thread.

That said I think a 3-pulse is possible seeing how the Stunner missile has been around for a while and having the same frame size. Also there had been some cooperation on a derivative with the SkyCeptor. Israel has also been working on an air-launched version for a while.
I do agree thrust throttling is a bit to early in developement but seeing how gas generators are now being used by many new coming designs for vector thrust. And the AIM-260 seems to be using it in the rear. They both would tie in well with each other by combining the gas generation section. This would make the combined design more complex, though.
Click to expand...
Considering that there was an open competition for the development of an throttle solid rocket Motor it seems unlikely that there already in a weapon system for mass production
 
JATM will bring some innovation to be sure in the subsystems discussed here but the best innovation will be a high volume manufacturable design, modularity in design and an open systems architecture. In this framework, JATM increment 1 is simple: more and highly loaded propellant but nothing chemically revolutionary, denser smaller more powerful battery, trade dumb HE for something smaller lighter and just as lethal and use the power and efficiency gains of modern microelectronics to make the seeker and fuzing functions as hard to defeat as possible. Let subsequent blocks and spirals/increments do their thing with a manufacturing process you can copy pasta to top tier MIC cos.
 
Last edited:
The two service branches have asked for nearly $1 billion for fiscal 2026, which begins October 1, to start producing the classified missile, according to budget documents and a service statement. The Air Force requested $368 million for first-time production, plus $300 million on its annual “Unfunded Priorities List,” while the Navy asked for $301 million.

Analysts at Melius Research said in 2024 the AIM-260 could become a $30 billion program depending on quantities produced. The missile is seen as crucial for Lockheed Martin, which recently reported $1.6 billion in charges and a possible $4.6 billion tax accounting liability.
Click to expand...

U.S. Air Force, Navy seek first order of Lockheed Martin's AIM-260 long-range missiles – Bloomberg

The AIM-260 is designed to fit inside the weapons bays of F-22 and F-35 fighters and will also be integrated with F-16 and F-15 jets.
defence-industry.eu defence-industry.eu
 
TomcatViP said:

U.S. Air Force, Navy seek first order of Lockheed Martin's AIM-260 long-range missiles – Bloomberg

The AIM-260 is designed to fit inside the weapons bays of F-22 and F-35 fighters and will also be integrated with F-16 and F-15 jets.
defence-industry.eu defence-industry.eu
Click to expand...
This is not correct. Reconciliation docs sourced by Air and Space Forces magazine reveal that the AF first ordered production JATM's in FY24 making 26 the third year one or both services have ordered missiles.
 
Keep in mind experience from artillery shells; "base bleed".
A relatively tiny pyrotechnical charge that keeps burning and releases gas - not for thrust, but for improving the rear end aerodynamics (less vortices).

This is below a "sustainer" rocket and can increase range substantially with little weight and volume.
 
bring_it_on said:
This is not correct. Reconciliation docs sourced by Air and Space Forces magazine reveal that the AF first ordered production JATM's in FY24 making 26 the third year one or both services have ordered missiles.
Click to expand...

Absolutely correct as we know from your own and others report here.
Since the news piece was from Bloomberg originally, I didn't feel like adding a comment.
Thanks for correcting this.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom