Northrop Grumman B-21 Raider (LRS-B)

Scott Kenny said:
JATM? wait, isn't that the AIM-260? Who gave the LtGen some Dale Brown books?

You might be able to carry 16 of those on the rotary launcher with an adapter.
Click to expand...
For all we know B-21 could carry longshot drones with each carrying 2 AIM-260
 
FighterJock said:
That would be an excellent idea for the B-21's defence.
Click to expand...
I did post this 2 months ago in the F/A-XX thread

insidersource said:
Here is another hot take. AIM-260 will be multi-role missile and be able to take out enemy SAM sites. This means the self escorting config listed above solves the need for carrying a dedicated SEAD AGM-88G missile. Scott Kennys primary justification for his double width tandem bay was to allow for that large SEAD missile.

I'm not suggesting the AIM-260 will do the same job as a dedicated AGM-88 as the warhead us much smaller. Historically the Navy aircraft flew around with a single AGM-88 just for emergencies. The AIM-260 will be good enough for emergencies. I'm surprised no one has mentioned this as the AIM-260 even has tactical in the name.
Click to expand...

We now have weapons with tri-mode seekers. Electronics are rapidly getting smaller. There is nothing stopping an AESA radar seeker from an air-to-air missile from being able to detect other radar sources or even use surface aperture radar imaging. It's just software. Software once developed is a simple update.

The perfect air-to-air missile would have both a radar and IR seeker. Sensor fusion inside the missile itself would then make it impossible to fool or jam. A dual mode seeker like this would also be able to do many other roles.
 
Last edited:
The new system at the center of the RMP could be considered a derivative of the Hornet or Strike Eagle set depending on whether you think the TRM array itself or the processor infrastructure defines the system.

BTW, if you’ve never considered what happens when a fully AI controlled AESA meets another fully controlled AESA, you should ask your friendly pro level LLM. It’s fun, and deeply disturbing!
 
My old proposal for the LRS-B B3 from like 12 years ago for the two and four engine designs:

insidersource said:
We now have weapons with tri-mode seekers. Electronics are rapidly getting smaller. There is nothing stopping an AESA radar seeker from an air-to-air missile from being able to detect other radar sources or even use surface aperture radar imaging. It's just software. Software once developed is a simple update.
Click to expand...
The problem is the missile's hardware to process things. Currently radar imaging is not feasible unless the military has some super photonic chip we don't know yet that does several trillion MVM operations.

IR alone might not be sufficient long term. UV sensor might need to be added for better discrimination, too. LRS-B3.png
 
Seragina said:
The problem is the missile's hardware to process things.
Click to expand...
That is not a problem. Most F-35 in service their entire computer processing power is less than the latest iphone. This is more than enough processing power for just two sensor feeds.
Seragina said:
Currently radar imaging is not feasible unless the military has some super photonic chip we don't know yet that does several trillion MVM operations.
Click to expand...
Radar imaging has been in service for decades. Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) is the term.

https://www.imsar.com/radar-products/nsp-2#Key-Specs
The above small radar is under 5lb and designed for small drones. It provides excellent radar surface pictures.

Seragina said:
IR alone might not be sufficient long term. UV sensor might need to be added for better discrimination, too.
Click to expand...
Most reports are now saying JATM has a dual mode seeker but you heard it from me first. An AESA radar would obviously be one of the seekers. IR or UV would probably be the second seeker.

The Israeli stunner surface to air missile for the last 10 years has a dual mode seeker with AESA and two IR sensors with 3way data link.

This is why the JATM is 100% classified. It clearly isn't an AMRAAM with slightly better range and seeker.

With the additional IR seeker and data link nothing stops JATM from performing like a high-speed and long range hellfire missile.

Nothing stops the fighter from using it's radar to illuminate a ground target and the JATM can use passive radar homing. It's all software.

JATM in the sead role could be fired towards the enemy radar. The active radar seeker could find the enemy radar transmitter because it is a metal object sticking up in the air. The missile can use the IR sensor to confirm the target. The enemy SAM system could turn off it's radar and the JATM could still find it.

50 years ago attack aircraft had dedicated ground radars. Fighters had dedicated air radars. It was only a matter of time for the active radar homing air-to-air missiles to become multi-role.

Multi-role missiles really simplifies the weapon loadout of a fighter. A 6th gen fighters can just carry a dozen JATM. If the fighter gets told there are a dozen trucks about to launch ballistic missiles then it can launch a dozen JATM at the trucks on the ground. If some of the ballistic missiles get launched then the same JATM can take them out in the boost phase.
 
Last edited:
JATM could be a pure passive missile using IR and radar emissions for tracking. or maybe semi passive if its something like sonar to if your not picking up anything you can go activate which will highlight targets but also lets everyone know your there too
 
JJPET said:
JATM could be a pure passive missile using IR and radar emissions for tracking. or maybe semi passive if its something like sonar to if your not picking up anything you can go activate which will highlight targets but also lets everyone know your there too
Click to expand...
Indeed. There are so many possibilities with dual seekers and smart software. Missiles can get software updates to improve the autonomous target recognition. The B-21 getting the missile is the biggest hint it will have some form of multi-role capability.
 
insidersource said:
That is not a problem. Most F-35 in service their entire computer processing power is less than the latest iphone. This is more than enough processing power for just two sensor feeds.

Radar imaging has been in service for decades. Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) is the term.

https://www.imsar.com/radar-products/nsp-2#Key-Specs
The above small radar is under 5lb and designed for small drones. It provides excellent radar surface pictures.


Most reports are now saying JATM has a dual mode seeker but you heard it from me first. An AESA radar would obviously be one of the seekers. IR or UV would probably be the second seeker.

The Israeli stunner surface to air missile for the last 10 years has a dual mode seeker with AESA and two IR sensors with 3way data link.

This is why the JATM is 100% classified. It clearly isn't an AMRAAM with slightly better range and seeker.

With the additional IR seeker and data link nothing stops JATM from performing like a high-speed and long range hellfire missile.

Nothing stops the fighter from using it's radar to illuminate a ground target and the JATM can use passive radar homing. It's all software.

JATM in the sead role could be fired towards the enemy radar. The active radar seeker could find the enemy radar transmitter because it is a metal object sticking up in the air. The missile can use the IR sensor to confirm the target. The enemy SAM system could turn off it's radar and the JATM could still find it.

50 years ago attack aircraft had dedicated ground radars. Fighters had dedicated air radars. It was only a matter of time for the active radar homing air-to-air missiles to become multi-role.

Multi-role missiles really simplifies the weapon loadout of a fighter. A 6th gen fighters can just carry a dozen JATM. If the fighter gets told there are a dozen trucks about to launch ballistic missiles then it can launch a dozen JATM at the trucks on the ground. If some of the ballistic missiles get launched then the same JATM can take them out in the boost phase.
Click to expand...
That radar aperture is too big an not representative. The number of transceiver elements matter for resolution and snapshot picture size. The smaller the more need to be done for one frame of the FOV.
Here's the best software implementation b the german DLR:
https://elib.dlr.de/203353/1/EUSAR2024.pdfthe equation is found on page 5:
SAR Processing-eq1.png
T_FFT is the Fast Fourier Transforms (FFT) operation time of the system
N is the number of pixels in one row of the snapshot. For one snapshot this has to be multiplied by the number of columns.
Then multiplied by the number of snapshots need for one frame and then again by desired framerate.
Now, see for yourself how much computation is needed. Assuming terminal seeking range is 20 km.
Set the FOV, scanning arcs and resolution yourself and see what you get.

Edit: Forgot to say this assumes the radar already did the data collection to generate the pixels and has them stored and ready for processing.
 
Last edited:
insidersource said:
Your response lacks any evidence. A simple google search says it is extremely classified.
Click to expand...

Gosh, I must have forgotten to allow google to index the hundreds of pages of documents I obtained from DoD.

The other hundred or so pages came from DoD’s own websites, so maybe your Google search was inadequate.

I do eagerly await all of the evidence for your various claims though!
 
insidersource said:
Your response lacks any evidence. A simple google search says it is extremely classified.
Click to expand...

Some new members presence here lacks any interest. A simple forum search says they're arrogant, disrespectful individuals.
Yet here we are.
 
Manuducati said:
Some new members presence here lacks any interest. A simple forum search says they're arrogant, disrespectful individuals.
Yet here we are.
Click to expand...
This is the third time in the last 6 months quellish has said he has collected hundreds of documents on an issue with great effort. Then he says a member is wrong and provides none of his documents. That is indeed arrogant behaviour.

Previous examples are the planning documents for the hush house at Plant 42. A third example is the hundreds of documents that he "apparently" has that explains the LRS program in both the Navy and USAF recent budgets.
 
insidersource said:
This is the third time in the last 6 months quellish has said he has collected hundreds of documents on an issue with great effort. Then he says a member is wrong and provides none of his documents. That is indeed arrogant behaviour.

Previous examples are the planning documents for the hush house at Plant 42. A third example is the hundreds of documents that he "apparently" has that explains the LRS program in both the Navy and USAF recent budgets.
Click to expand...
I don't know the history, but I would hope that if someone is claiming they have insider info it would have to be vetted by admin/mods otherwise the user gets banned. At least that is how it has worked on other forms I have been on.
 
I found AIM-260 JATM on Wikipedia and on a Google search. As examples, currently 100% classified is the B-21's capabilities, not unless you are cleared into the program and have specific access to it's capabilities. Currently 100% classified is the F-47's true aircraft configuration and its capabilities. Currently 100% classified is the F/A-XX's configuration and its capabilities. quellish does research, anybody can do research in the right places, a good place is FOIA, you may get something and you may not. In time, more and more info will appear regarding these programs, but only to a certain extent. Tacit Blue was declassified to a certain extent and a lot of it's capabilities remain classified and probably will for a very long time. Our Northrop ATA is acknowledged, A-12 is gone and why isn't more info released about the Northrop ATA and the design's capabilities and I'll tell you, evolution to B-21.
 
Hydroman said:
I found AIM-260 JATM on Wikipedia and on a Google search. As examples, currently 100% classified is the B-21's capabilities, not unless you are cleared into the program and have specific access to it's capabilities. Currently 100% classified is the F-47's true aircraft configuration and its capabilities. Currently 100% classified is the F/A-XX's configuration and its capabilities.
Click to expand...
What is your point? B-21, F-47 and F/A-XX also have Wikipedia pages found on Google. AIM-260 is 100% classified.

It is extremely unusual for an air-to-air missile to be kept this secret. AIM-9X, AIM-120C7 and AIM-120D developments had all the specs published before it entered service. Regarding AIM-260 there is nothing official about the seeker(s). Nothing official about propulsion method such as highly loaded grain or meteor style propulsion. Nothing official if it is hit-to-kill or normal warhead. Yet it's currently in production with an export order from Australia.

Lockheed Martin also makes the Patriot Pac-3 MSE and Pac-3 Skyceptor they all have spec sheets online. AIM-260 has nothing which suggests it has unusual capabilities. Being multi-role would be an obvious reason for this level of secrecy. Every public information that quellish would download would then not mention the multi-role capability.

If it has a normal dual pulse rocket engine, normal warhead and a normal air-to-air seeker then it can only have fractionally more range than AIM-120D. Why so secret?
 
insidersource said:
If it has a normal dual pulse rocket engine, normal warhead and a normal air-to-air seeker then it can only have fractionally more range than AIM-120D. Why so secret?
Click to expand...
Weird question. The AIM-120 was equally veiled before. Back then, journalists were more investigative overall.

Maybe ask @quellish nicely he’d give you docs to harp about.
 
The first combat trials of the AIM-120 were during Desert Strom back in 1991 and if I can remember it was during that time that the first combat kill of a MIG-25 Foxbat was by an AMRAAM.
 
FighterJock said:
The first combat trials of the AIM-120 were during Desert Strom back in 1991 and if I can remember it was during that time that the first combat kill of a MIG-25 Foxbat was by an AMRAAM.
Click to expand...

The official history says AMRAAM was carried but not used in Desert Storm. First combat use was from an F/A-18 against a Foxbat during Southern Watch in 1992.

That wasn't the first combat loss of a MiG-25, though. The Israelis killed two Syrian examples over Lebanon in 1981, and Iran claimed multiple kills during the Iran-Iraq war. The USAF even killed two with Sparrows during Desert Storm proper. (Some folks claim these were actually covert AMRAAM kills but there's no evidence, AFAIK.)
 
TomS said:
The official history says AMRAAM was carried but not used in Desert Storm. First combat use was from an F/A-18 against a Foxbat during Southern Watch in 1992.

That wasn't the first combat loss of a MiG-25, though. The Israelis killed two Syrian examples over Lebanon in 1981, and Iran claimed multiple kills during the Iran-Iraq war. The USAF even killed two with Sparrows during Desert Storm proper. (Some folks claim these were actually covert AMRAAM kills but there's no evidence, AFAIK.)
Click to expand...
Wiki is saying it wasn't deployed until Sep 1991, which is how I understood it. They made a decision to deploy with AIM-7s in Desert Storm due to proven maturity.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIM-120_AMRAAM#Development
After protracted development, the deployment of AMRAAM (AIM-120A) began in September 1991 in US Air Force McDonnell Douglas F-15 Eagle fighter squadrons.
Click to expand...

But then Designation Systems thinks otherwise. I guess it's a case of, "If a bear poos in the woods and nobody is around, does it smell?" Or something.
https://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-120.html
Although a few AIM-120As were deployed to the Gulf during Operation Desert Storm in early 1991, no AMRAAMs were fired in that conflict (officially, at least). The first combat use of an AIM-120A occurred in December 1992, when an F-16C shot down an Iraqi MiG-25 during Operation Southern Watch.
Click to expand...

Bit OT though.
 
Last edited:
These statements regarding AIM-260 are contradictory:

First:

insidersource said:
AIM-260 is 100% classified.
Click to expand...

But then in the same post:

insidersource said:
It is extremely unusual for an air-to-air missile to be kept this secret. AIM-9X, AIM-120C7 and AIM-120D developments had all the specs published before it entered service. Regarding AIM-260 there is nothing official about the seeker(s). Nothing official about propulsion method such as highly loaded grain or meteor style propulsion. Nothing official if it is hit-to-kill or normal warhead. Yet it's currently in production with an export order from Australia.
Click to expand...

Clearly if the program was "100% classified" the information expressed here would not be in the public domain. As it is, there is extensive information about the AIM-260 in the public domain.

DoD R-1 and P-1 budget request documentation for the past several years clearly declare the existence of the program and it's funding levels for development and procurement.

The Air Force and Navy have made public statements about the program and have released images of the missile.

The program has been described numerous times in testimony and documents for the Legislature.

Public records from flight testing describe development progress, how much space they needed to test, etc. (see https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/th...ctical-missile-jatm.31927/page-13#post-741935 )

The press reporting on this program, however, has been lacking. Many of the press articles on the program have been outright incorrect, intentionally misleading, or pure clickbait. (see https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/th...anced-tactical-missile-jatm.31927/post-667273 )

Not "!00% classified". It is an acknowledged program, DoD has made information about it's progress and funding public, etc. There is an overwhelming amount of evidence that counters the position that the program is "100% classified" or even just "significantly classified".


If you are curious about what is and is not classified about the program I would suggest requesting the Security Classification Guide for the program.


insidersource said:
This is the third time in the last 6 months quellish has said he has collected hundreds of documents on an issue with great effort. Then he says a member is wrong and provides none of his documents. That is indeed arrogant behaviour.

Previous examples are the planning documents for the hush house at Plant 42. A third example is the hundreds of documents that he "apparently" has that explains the LRS program in both the Navy and USAF recent budgets.
Click to expand...

This is a great example, thank you for bringing it up.

In the thread "Lockheed "Classified Aero Program" " there was.... much ado about nothing regarding a "new" building at the (very public) Air Force Plant 42. This building is a "hush house" for aircraft engine testing. There are other such facilities at Plat 42, and they are quite common at military aircraft facilities.

While your position here seems to be that I "provided none of the documents" that supported the position that... uhh... the hush house is not the entrance to some secret underground base? Or something - I DID provide "references":

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/lockheed-classified-aero-program.47799/post-849897
In this post I pointed any reader to where they could obtain plenty of information relevant to the discussion. In later posts it became clear that readers had not taken the initiative to read or understand these sources.

This was not an isolated incident. In a number of other posts over the last few years I have seen excellent sources provided... which are then ignored. That kind of makes it pointless to provide the sources.

BTW, F/A-XX is still a strike fighter.

With regards to the mythical multi-service secret Long Range Strike Aircraft, if I posted dozens of budget documents - which are already available to anyone with a web browser - it would do little good. Not many readers are able to read and understand those records or piece them together coherently. There are other records that are relevant to the discussion that may have been provided in confidence, etc. which I may not be comfortable sharing.

But as I have pointed out several times, anyone with even a basic understanding of the DoD budget should be able to tell that just from the wording of the "long range strike aircraft" item that it is NOT a single , secret program. Some author looked at that item and created a clickbait article. That's all there is to that story.

I have been posting to SPF for over 15 years. The majority of my posts over that time have included sources. I have been "researching" aerospace programs for... more than 30 years? I'm not exactly a new guy. I have no access to "insider sources" and do not claim that I do. I work with information that is available to any member of the public.

I have increasingly seen posts that take positions that have little basis in reality and ignore any contradictory information that is presented (F/A-XX - still a strike fighter!). These extraordinary claims lack extraordinary evidence. For example, the position that a Lockheed NGAD demonstrator is in production at Palmdale.

It is rather... interesting that the same readers who make such claims without evidence at all then bring out the torches and pitchforks and make personal attacks demanding evidence of others. Even more interesting when, more often than not, the evidence has already been posted (F/A-XX : STILL A STRIKE FIGHTER!).


All of which has little to do with LRS-B, which is the subject of this thread.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom