Jump to content


Photo

Air Force Developing Amraam Replacement To Counter China


  • Please log in to reply
11 replies to this topic

#1 Special-K

Special-K

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 760 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Western New York State, USA
  • Interests:All things military, Shooting, Cycling, Hiking and Camping.

Posted 21 June 2019 - 1137 AM

http://www.airforcem...nter-China.aspx

 

 

DAYTON, Ohio—The Air Force is developing a new air-to-air missile, dubbed the AIM-260, that offers longer range than Raytheon’s Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile and would be used to counter the Chinese PL-15 weapon.

Air Force Weapons Program Executive Officer Brig. Gen. Anthony Genatempo told reporters in a June 20 interview here the service is working with Lockheed Martin, the Army, and the Navy to field the Joint Advanced Tactical Missile in 2022. Work began about two years ago.

“It has a range greater than AMRAAM, different capabilities onboard to go after that specific [next generation air-dominance] threat set, but certainly longer legs,” he said. “As I bring up JATM production, AMRAAM production is kind of going to start tailing off.”

The weapon is initially planned to fly in the F-22’s main weapons bay and on the Navy’s F/A-18, with the F-35 to follow. Flight tests will begin in 2021 and initial operational capability is slated for 2022, Genatempo said.

“It is meant to be the next air-to-air air dominance weapon for our air-to-air fighters,” he said.

The Air Force will buy its last AMRAAMs in fiscal 2026 as JATM ramps up, answering combatant commanders’ needs, Genatempo said. 

He told Air Force Magazine the service hasn’t settled on how many JATMs it might buy in the outyears or how the program will ramp up.

“The future of what JATM looks like, especially out in that outyear increment, is very, very up in the air right now,” Genatempo said. “As far as lot sizes go, it’s on the order of a couple hundred per lot and I don’t think we have a definite plan.”

He expects JATM could be in production as long as AMRAAM, which was first deployed in 1991.

 

 

I certainly think this is a good thing.  Looking forward to learning more about it, and how it compares to the PL-15 and the Meteor.  Only 2 more years to IOC, or so they claim, and they've been working on it for 2 years already.  That doesn't seem like all that long of a development time.  Am I wrong in this?  And if it is also going to be joint with the Army, is it fair to infer this will also be a SAM, like the NASAMS or SLAMRAAM system?

 

 

-K

 


  • 0

#2 Dawes

Dawes

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,571 posts

Posted 21 June 2019 - 1525 PM

Should've just bought Meteor.

 

And WTF is up with this "AIM-260" designation? I believe that the numbering sequence is up to 183 with the AGM-183. I guess it's like the B-3 becoming the B-21 or the F-35, which (in sequence) should be the F-25, or something close.


Edited by Dawes, 21 June 2019 - 1530 PM.

  • 0

#3 lastdingo

lastdingo

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 4,624 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Germany

Posted 21 June 2019 - 1634 PM

Maybe they're factoring in the delays during the development.

;)


  • 0

#4 KV7

KV7

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,878 posts

Posted 22 June 2019 - 0003 AM

It looks like designation inflation, or order to make the new thing look extra shiny.

F-35 prototype was given 'F-25' designation right ?


Edited by KV7, 22 June 2019 - 0004 AM.

  • 0

#5 JasonJ

JasonJ

    nonbiri

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 10,573 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:doko yarou
  • Interests:sleeping

Posted 22 June 2019 - 0237 AM

They might have merged the designation number lines for fighter aircraft with experimental aircraft. It was X-32 vs X-35. X-35 won hence F-35. All the in-between numbers before 32 and 35 were experimental aircraft. Which then could mean the successor to the F-35 might be in the range of F-65~F-80?
  • 0

#6 Nobu

Nobu

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,609 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 22 June 2019 - 1308 PM

Should've just bought Meteor.
 
And WTF is up with this "AIM-260" designation? I believe that the numbering sequence is up to 183 with the AGM-183. I guess it's like the B-3 becoming the B-21 or the F-35, which (in sequence) should be the F-25, or something close.


Marketing, to give the impression that what is being paid for is better than what is available.
  • 0

#7 lastdingo

lastdingo

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 4,624 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Germany

Posted 22 June 2019 - 1429 PM

Current Meteor isn't state of the art anyway. The Japanese AAM-4B has an AESA seeker, and the Russians have one such AAM as well.


  • 0

#8 Josh

Josh

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,264 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New York City

Posted 22 June 2019 - 1704 PM

Just buy Meteor. Give our most trusted alley a win and give the USAF a superior weapon that the RAF will already pay the integration costs for anyway.


  • 0

#9 Nobu

Nobu

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,609 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 22 June 2019 - 1926 PM

It seems silly not to from an efficiency standpoint. It makes sense not to from a defense procurement as a domestic job and revenue generator standpoint.

 

Maybe they're factoring in the delays during the development.

 

They are probably counting on them.


Edited by Nobu, 22 June 2019 - 1926 PM.

  • 0

#10 lastdingo

lastdingo

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 4,624 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Germany

Posted 22 June 2019 - 2101 PM

To be fair, the U.S. as a major net arms exporter has good reasons to not offer any offset deals with its arms exports.

This means it won't get any offset deals for its arms imports (it can at times force the seller to set up shop in the U.S. if the order is big enough, though).

 

You won't see 40...60% of expenditure flow back as government revenue without import offset deals or domestic buys, and you won't see any economic stimulus (including reduction of unemployment insurance expenditures and such) either.

This means foreign purchases are about twice as expensive to the treasury as domestic buys.

 

So buying foreign arms makes only sense if you absolutely have to have them. Buying Meteor would be fine if the U.S. hadn't advanced past AIM-120B yet and wouldn't reach AIM-120C before 2021, for example.

 

European armed forces decided against imports in favour of even decades-long development programs with little promise of superiority even during the Cold War. Remember the development of the Tiger and Mangusta attack helicopters; they could have purchased Apaches or Cobras instead, as early as the 80's.

 

----------------------------

 

About Meteor not being state of the art:

 

https://thediplomat....issile-project/

"The intention is to combine the active electronically scanned array seeker of the Mitsubishi Electric AAM-4B medium-range air-to-air missile with the Meteor as the AAM-4B is too bulky to fit into the F-35 A’s internal weapons bay."


Edited by lastdingo, 22 June 2019 - 2107 PM.

  • 0

#11 JasonJ

JasonJ

    nonbiri

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 10,573 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:doko yarou
  • Interests:sleeping

Posted 22 June 2019 - 2200 PM

 

----------------------------

 

About Meteor not being state of the art:

 

https://thediplomat....issile-project/

"The intention is to combine the active electronically scanned array seeker of the Mitsubishi Electric AAM-4B medium-range air-to-air missile with the Meteor as the AAM-4B is too bulky to fit into the F-35 A’s internal weapons bay."

 

 

 

The AAM-4B is too big for the F-35. Japan is going to procure AIM-120 for its F-35s. AAM-4B doesn't have the propulsion system like what is on the meteor. 


  • 0

#12 lastdingo

lastdingo

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 4,624 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Germany

Posted 23 June 2019 - 0901 AM

Yet it does have a vastly superior radar.

 

Meteor is not state of the art. It has great range combined with probably good terminal manoeuvrability (thrust in terminal phase is a mixed blessing when the target has missile warners that depend on detecting the smoke trail's IR or UV signature). Its radar is a modified MICA missile radar, which some believe to be inferior to AMRAAM's.

 

It may very well be that Meteor can be launched at greater distance, but fails to achieve good pk due to countermeasures when AAM-4B can only be launched at smaller distances but has higher pk because of a better radar. Superior range is not conclusive evidence for overall superiority all by itself.


  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users