US Navy, Air Force Order New Long-Range AIM-260 Air-to-Air Missiles

The United States Army has entered the pre-final stage of serial production and adoption of new long-range missiles to engage air targets AIM-260. Military analytical publication Defence Industry Europe reports that the US Air Force and Navy have jointly allocated $687 million for the further development and production of this long-range air-to-air missile system.

Its latest tests were conducted in the spring of this year under conditions of the strictest secrecy. Work on the creation of a promising aviation long-range AIM-260 Joint Advanced Tactical Missile missiles began no later than 2016-17.

The very fact of the existence of this project became known only in 2019, when the Pentagon and Lockheed Martin managed to carry out part of the design work.

Since 2019, various pieces of information about the new project have been regularly reported. Officials and unnamed sources have reported technical features of the rocket, plans for its production, financial aspects of the project, etc. Some of this information has not been confirmed, and the reliability of other information has not yet been determined.

The tactical and technical characteristics and combat capabilities of the munition are kept secret. Only some government sources report that the missile will be equipped with an active radar homing head and a bidirectional data link for trajectory correction in flight. It is also reported that it will be equipped with an inertial navigation system, which will expand its guidance capabilities.

Judging by the general leaks of the AIM-260 performance characteristics description, there seems to be nothing particularly new or groundbreaking. The missile's speed, which is supposed to accelerate to Mach 5, is not very surprising either. This is generally some kind of maximum figure for an American hypersonic missile. weapons. Earlier, the press reported that missiles of other types, developed in the US, still in prototype form, could not overcome this speed limit.

The AIM-260's operational range is kept secret. According to open sources, the range will be "significantly greater" than that of the AIM-120D-3, the technical characteristics of which are also not disclosed. Knowing the US habit of bragging about its achievements, including in terms of weapons, especially under Trump, it seems that in this case the results are very modest in comparison with the Russian Federation and China. Even the warheads of Iranian ballistic missiles approach the target at a speed twice as high as that expected for the AIM-120D-3.

The AIM-260 missile is being developed for use on both aircraft carriers and conventional aircraft. Its deployment would represent a significant step forward in the U.S. military's long-range air combat capabilities.

— Well, to be honest, Defence Industry Europe makes a completely unfounded assertion.

At the same time, open sources report that the AIM-120D-3 will be able to hit targets at a distance of up to 200 kilometers. It was assumed that the initial platforms for launching the new generation of missiles will be the US Air Force F-22 Raptor and the US Navy F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, with subsequent integration planned for the F-35 Lightning II and F-15EX Eagle II.

AIM-2026 production is expected to exceed AIM-260 production by 120. That is, unless Lockheed Martin runs into unexpected costs that push back the project's completion date, which has long been the norm for Pentagon contracts to develop new types of weapons.

Comments

[th.kuzmichev]

It seems that Zelensky also ordered missiles. We should send them.

[Pavel Kislyakov]

We can only send BR, CR and UAV to Zele.
We need SAMs and VV missiles ourselves

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

There is a lot of aplomb, but unfortunately, there is little knowledge. Comparing the air-to-air missiles and the warhead of a ballistic missile is a bit funny, by the way, our air-to-air missiles have a speed of 6M. Apparently, we should also laugh - almost twice as small as the Iranian missiles, according to the author.
The author does not know the missile's range, but for some reason he is sure that it will be lower than similar missiles of the Russian Federation and China. Well, I have to disappoint the author - the AIM260 is designed as a MEDIUM-RANGE URBM with a speed of 5M and a range of at least 200 km. Our current URBM SD has 4M and 110 km, respectively.

[Sky strike fighter]

Our current RVV SD has 4M and 110 km respectively

This is if we talk about the R-77-1, then yes, its radius of destruction is up to 110 km. But if we take into account the serial R-77M with a radius of destruction of up to 200 km and the R-37M, as well as the Product 810, with a radius of destruction of up to 300 km, then everything looks somewhat different. Moreover, the R-37M confirmed its performance characteristics by shooting down Ukrainian Air Force fighters from a distance of 217 km and even more.

. However, all these F-16s are no match for the Russian Su-30, Su-35S, Su-57 multirole fighters and/or MiG-31BM interceptors, especially if they are equipped with R-37M or R-97 (yet to be confirmed codename "Item 810") air-to-air missiles. Both of these missiles have a maximum range of over 400 kilometers. ... The aforementioned R-37M set several world records during the Ukrainian conflict, shooting down enemy fighters from over 200 km away (217 and 213, to be exact). Moreover, the Su-57 has probably already broken these records with its new R-97 (possibly even in combat against another F-16).

https://inosmi.ru/20250521/istrebiteli-273084513.html

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: Sky Strike fighter

But if we take into account the serial R-77M with a radius of destruction of up to 200 km

Which is also promising for the Su-57, for the rest, the R-20-77 was purchased back in the 1th

Quote: Sky Strike fighter

R-37M, as well as Product 810, with a radius of destruction of up to 300 km

And these are long-range, not medium-range, air-to-air missiles. Why compare them with the AIM260? Long-range air-to-air missiles are also being developed in the US

[Sky strike fighter]

. And this is a long-range, not medium-range, air-to-air missile.

What does this change? AIM-260 is also a long-range air-to-air missile.

... was destroyed by the Russian R-37M ultra-long-range air-to-air missile. It covered a record distance of 213 kilometers. According to experts, the upgraded MiG-29A fighter of the Ukrainian Air Force was detected using the onboard system of the Russian Aerospace Forces aircraft "Irbis". Moreover, this happened at a distance of about 270 kilometers. The R-37M missile was fired at the enemy at the moment when the MiG-29 was ready to launch an AGM-88B Block 3 HARM anti-radar missile. American F-16 fighters will clearly be in trouble. The maximum range of the R-37M missile is 300 kilometers.

https://rg.ru/2024/07/30/hronika-svo-letchiki-ustanovili-rekord-sbiv-samolet-vsu-na-udalenii-v-213-km.html

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: Sky Strike fighter

AIM-260 is also a long-range air-to-air missile.

Average. It is predicted to replace AMRAAM.

[Force]

Even the warheads of Iranian ballistic missiles approach their target at a speed twice that expected for the AIM-120D-3.

The authors don’t even read the material after automatic translation.
Or they use it to make something like this... (they might as well compare the range of IRBMs with air-to-air missiles).

[Alexandra]

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

And these are long-range, not medium-range, air-to-air missiles. Why compare them with the AIM260? Long-range air-to-air missiles are also being developed in the US

https://pentagonus.ru/publ/po_rodam_vojsk/armija/osnashhenie_vooruzhennykh_sil_ssha_sovremennymi_kompleksami_aviacionnogo_vooruzhenija_2022/147-1-0-3208

"In June 2019, the first information appeared about the creation of the AIM-260 JATM (Joint Advanced Tactical Missile) long-range air-to-air guided missile. According to preliminary data, its development began in 2017 as part of a joint program of the US Air Force and Navy, detailed information about which is absent. The new model of the AB will replace the AIM-120 Amraam medium-range missile (AIM-120C, AIM-120D), which will ensure air superiority over promising fighters of the Chinese Air Force and Navy, including those equipped with PL-15 long-range air-to-air missiles.

The AIM-260A JATM's range should be twice that of the AIM-120D Amraam, at least 300-320 km. The combined guidance system (GS) includes an inertial navigation system (INS), a Navstar SSGN, a two-way LPD, and presumably a dual-mode homing head with active radar and thermal imaging sensors.

In terms of its weight and dimensions, it should not exceed the AIM-120D Amraam missile, since it is planned to equip the Air Force F-22A and Navy F/A-18E/F Super Hornet aircraft already in service, and later the F-35A and C. Flight tests of the AIM-260A missile were to take place in 2021, and its adoption into service in 2022."

1. Whose classification do you use when classifying the AIM-260A as a medium-range missile?

2. Within the weight and size characteristics of the AIM-120D, it is possible to achieve a range of 300-320 km only by developing a very advanced small-sized ramjet for the missile. And since the AIM-260A does not have a ramjet, then in the best case, the range when launched at high altitudes and high supersonic speeds is in the region of ~200 km, i.e. similar to the range of the R-77M.

3. The US Navy has also adopted the AIM-174B long-range air-to-air missile, the only carrier of which today is the F/A-18F carrier-based fighter-attack aircraft. The missile's launch weight is 860 kg, maximum flight speed is Mach 3,5, and maximum range is at least 240 km.

4. Of course, the US is developing other long-range missiles, Boeing LRAAM, Raytheon LREW, but it is pointless to point to these developments before the stage of flight tests. After the AIM-54C, the US military-industrial complex began a period of failed attempts to develop long-range air-to-air missiles that lasted for several decades. As for the AIM-54 missile, in the entire history of service in the US Navy Aviation, this missile has only had two confirmed combat launches against enemy combat aircraft and not a single confirmed destruction of targets.

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: AlexanderA

Whose classification do you use when classifying the AIM-260A as a medium-range missile?

It would be more correct to ask another question - whose classification do you use:))))
Our classification is clear - there are short-range, medium-range and long-range missiles. But the thing is that the American classification of missiles is generally a confusing matter (like many things in the US). They have WVRAAM and BVRAAM, that is, missiles for hitting a target within visual visibility, by which they mean missiles with a range of up to 40 km and beyond visual visibility (missiles with a range of over 40 km). The same AIM-120 of any modification is a BVRAAM. However, such a classification has a well-known flaw, since both medium-range and long-range missiles fall into BVRAAM.
But here's what's interesting - BVRAAM is a class of missiles. But the name of the missile itself may contain a reference to its range. So AIM-120 is a medium-range missile, since AMRAAM stands for Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile - that is, that we are talking about a medium-range missile, it is said in simple American words. But for the AIM-260 there is no direct indication - it is JATM, that is, Joint Advanced Tactical Missile, which literally translates as "joint advanced tactical missile"
In other words, we get the following
1) The American classification and naming of the AIM-260 missile does not indicate whether it is a long-range or medium-range air-to-air missile according to our Russian classification.
2) Accordingly, the classification of the AIM-260 into one class or another is solely on the conscience of our media resources.
Now let's figure out what class the AIM-260 should be classified into.
1) The AIM-260 is being created to replace the AIM-120, that is, to replace the medium-range missile
2) The range of the AIM-260 is approximately equal to our newest medium-range air-to-air missiles. It will probably still be slightly greater - for our missile it is considered "up to 200 km", for the American one "at least 200 km), but the order is comparable.
3) AIM-260 is similar in size to AMRAAM
That is, by all parameters, the AIM-260 corresponds to a medium-range air-to-air missile and should be considered as such. And the fact that some of our comrades classify it as long-range... Well, firstly, it is also more pleasant to compare (ours flies further!), and secondly, according to the old American classification, if my sclerosis does not lie, it belongs to a long-range air-to-air missile. It is just that this classification is long outdated, since long range there is everything that is over 100 km.

[Alexandra]

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

It would be more correct to ask another question - whose classification do you use:))))

That's why I asked whose classification you use. Because according to both domestic and American classifications, the AIM-260 is a long-range air-to-air missile.

https://www.twz.com/28636/meet-the-aim-260-the-air-force-and-navys-future-long-range-air-to-air-missile

Meet The AIM-260, The Air Force And Navy's Future Long-Range Air-To-Air Missile

Maybe someone else has a classification according to which the AIM-260 is a medium-range air-to-air missile?

But what's interesting is that BVRAAM is a class of missiles.

Which has long been divided into two subclasses: MRAAM - Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile, and LRAAM - Long Range Air-to-Air Missile. Already in the 21st century, the concept of VLRAAM - Very Long Range Air-to-Air Missile was introduced.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/4035974_Very_long_range_anti-air_missile_systems_design

But there is no direct indication for the AIM-260 - it is a JATM, that is, a Joint Advanced Tactical Missile, which literally translates as "joint advanced tactical missile."

In the West, the AIM-260 is classified as a subclass of LRAAM. Please provide sources that classify the AIM-260 as a subclass of MRAAM.

That is, by all parameters, the AIM-260 corresponds precisely to a medium-range air-to-air missile and should be considered as such.

When the division of BVRAAM into MRAAM and LRAAM arose, the maximum launch range of at least 100 km was considered the limiting one. See:

http://pentagonus.ru/publ/materialy_posvjashheny/1970_1990_gg/razvitie_v_ssha_upravljaemykh_raket_klassa_quot_vozdukh_vozdukh_quot/120-1-0-1847

Development of air-to-air guided missiles in the USA Major Engineer B. Semenov

"Along with the creation of short-range air combat missiles, the United States is working to improve and create new medium- and long-range missiles (about 50 and 100 km, respectively)."

http://pentagonus.ru/publ/upravljaemye_rakety_klassa_quot_vozdukh_vozdukh_quot_1980/17-1-0-2349

Guided air-to-air missiles Lieutenant Colonel-Engineer B. Semenov

"Long-range missile. Currently, the American Phoenix AIM-54A missile, which is in service with the F-14A Tomcat fighter, is the only representative of this type of missile abroad... The maximum firing range is over 100 km."

The AIM-120C-5, which began to be delivered in 2000, surpassed the 100 km maximum launch range. The abbreviation AMRAAM was not changed.

It’s just that this classification is long outdated, since long range is anything over 100 km.

Today, the classification is being adopted by default: up to 200 km - medium-range air-to-air missiles, up to 300 km - long-range air-to-air missiles, over 300 km - ultra-long-range air-to-air missiles.

The AIM-260A is predicted to have a maximum range of over 200 km.

https://boltflight.com/aim-260-jatm-the-next-generation-air-superiority-missile/

Maximum Firing Range: At least 200 km (120 mi), potentially double the range of the latest AIM-120D-3 variants.

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

There are a lot of links, but as usual there is so little meaning that one could say there is none at all.

Quote: AlexanderA

Which has long been divided into two subclasses: MRAAM - Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile, and LRAAM - Long Range Air-to-Air Missile.

You write and immediately add

Quote: AlexanderA

When the division of BVRAAM into MRAAM and LRAAM arose, the maximum launch range of at least 100 km was considered the milestone.

Period. This is exactly what I wrote to you about.

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

According to the old American classification, if my sclerosis is not lying, it refers specifically to long-range air-to-air missiles. It's just that this classification is long out of date, since long range there is everything over 100 km.

You have no objections on the merits. Then you write

Quote: AlexanderA

Today, the classification is being adopted by default: up to 200 km - medium-range air-to-air missiles, up to 300 km - long-range air-to-air missiles, over 300 km - ultra-long-range air-to-air missiles.

But please provide a link to the "regular order" in the USA.

[Alexandra]

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

There are a lot of links, but as usual there is so little meaning that one could say there is none at all.

I prefer politeness if the interlocutor is polite. I see that he is not. You, Andrey, how do you say in Russian, "pulled out of your finger" that the AIM-260A is a medium-range air-to-air missile. When I politely suggested that you demonstrate that you did NOT classify the AIM-260A as a medium-range air-to-air missile simply because you wanted to/thought so, you simply started being rude, stating that the interlocutor "as usual" wrote a meaningless message.

Period. This is exactly what I wrote to you about.

You wrote that the AIM-260A is a medium-range air-to-air missile, forgetting to add "in my humble opinion". Unlike you, I know that the division of the BVRAAM into medium-range (MRAAM) and long-range (LRAAM) missiles occurred at the 100 km range line not from Wikipedia, but from Soviet issues of the magazine "Foreign Military Review", which I confirmed with references.

I'm waiting for you to confirm with links that the AIM-260 is classified today in the US as a medium-range air-to-air missile, and not according to your own "home-grown" classification, but according to the classification of at least someone in the US. Will I wait?

But please provide a link to the "regular order" in the USA.

After you Andrey, after you. I'm waiting, you are our shameless classifier.

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: AlexanderA

When I politely suggested that you demonstrate that you did NOT classify the AIM-260A as a medium-range air-to-air missile simply because you wanted to/thought so, you simply started being rude.

But lying is not good. When you asked me to demonstrate this, I gave you an absolutely polite and detailed answer

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

2 July 2025 09: 36

But when you responded to it with a meaningless rebuke, then yes, I put politeness aside.
The gist of our dispute:
I - AIM-260 can be considered a long-range air-to-air missile only according to the outdated American classification, today its status is not defined
Alexandra - no, that's not true, in the distant past there was a classification according to which the AIM-260 was a long-range missile, here are 100500 links!

Quote: AlexanderA

I'm waiting for you to confirm with links that the AIM-260 is classified today in the US as a medium-range air-to-air missile.

You won't get it for the reasons stated above. I don't see the US officially classifying this missile as anything other than a BVRAAM, which doesn't qualify it as a medium or short range missile.

Quote: AlexanderA

After you Andrey, after you

That is, you have no confirmation. Which is not surprising - as I said above, despite the abundance of links, your message did not carry any semantic load. The only point that could give it meaning is precisely the link to the official classification of the USA (and not to the lines from the journalistic publication), according to which the Americans consider medium-range air-to-air missiles up to 200 km

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

medium or near

Medium or large, of course.

[Alexandra]

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

But lying is not good.

Dear Andrey, You "pulled" the classification of the AIM-260A as a medium-range missile "out of thin air". Both domestic specialists and the US classify this missile as a long-range air-to-air missile (repeat the quotes and links I provided to confirm this?)

When you asked me to demonstrate this, I gave you an absolutely polite and detailed answer.

Lying is not good, Andrey. You called the AIM-260A a medium-range missile. To my question: "Whose classification do you use when classifying the AIM-260A as a medium-range missile?" You still did NOT cite a single source that would classify the AIM-260A as a medium-range missile. Your "extended answer", with the "hee-hee-hee" smiley at the end, boils down to the fact that you personally, and no one else, classify the AIM-260A as a medium-range air-to-air missile. This would not be important if you had not "derived" today's domestic lag in air-to-air missiles from the United States based on your personal classification. I will quote you: "AIM260 is designed as a MEDIUM-RANGE air-to-air missile with a speed of 5M and a range of at least 200 km. Our current SD air-to-air missiles have 4M and 110 km, respectively."

As they say, they themselves came up with the idea that the AIM-260A is a medium-range missile, although in reality no one classifies it that way, and on this basis they themselves refused to compare the AIM-260A with the R-37M. Profit!

Your "multi-move" was also supplemented by the following "argument". To demonstrate the domestic "lag" in air-to-air missiles, you began to compare the AIM-260A under development with "today's" (in fact, with yesterday's) RVV-SD (and what does the export version have to do with it? The R-77-1 was adopted by the Russian Aerospace Forces), and not with the R-77M missile. It's understandable. If we compare only the AIM-260A under development with the domestic R-77M missile, for which such a well-known Western resource as deagel.com noted that the missile reached initial operating capability (IOC) in 2020 ( https://www.deagel.com/Weapons/K-77M/a002922#001 ), then writing about the domestic lag in air-to-air missiles from the United States is no longer possible.

Lying is certainly not good. It only remains to clarify, dear Andrey, did you lie about today's domestic lag behind the US in air-to-air missiles unwittingly, due to insufficient familiarity with the topic, or voluntarily, it turns out that with malicious intent?

But when you responded to it with a meaningless rebuke, then yes, I put politeness aside.

My polite reply, with links and citations to sources, demonstrating that your personal classification of the AIM-260A missile as a medium-range air-to-air missile is erroneous, made you put aside politeness and "as usual" start being rude to me?

You really do usually get rude when someone politely, with links and quotes, points out that there is an error in your opinion on a matter. That is your problem, dear Andrey. Try to restrain your negative emotions. People are prone to mistakes, and you are a human being. By classifying the AIM-260A as a medium-range air-to-air missile, not a long-range one, you were wrong. You should admit your own mistakes, and not "get into a bottle" of rudeness and personal attacks. Otherwise, questions arise: was the mistake unintentional, or was it malicious?

People who make a false statement unintentionally, but then use demagogic polemical techniques to try to avoid admitting the mistake they made, stop being kind and become evil.

I have already encountered your "put aside politeness" more than once and, to be honest, I sympathize with the people with whom you have personal or business relationships.

I'm waiting for you to confirm with links that the AIM-260 is classified today in the US as a medium-range air-to-air missile.

You won't get it for the reasons stated above. I don't see the US officially classifying this missile as anything other than a BVRAAM, which doesn't qualify it as a medium or short range missile.

Links, dear Andrey, links. If all those present still do not see from you links to American authors classifying the AIM-260A as MRAAM, then I am absolutely right - you have elevated to an absolute "far-fetched" personal classification of the AIM-260A as a medium-range air-to-air missile, and on the basis of this, only your classification, you have constructed a whole "theory" about today's domestic lag in air-to-air missiles from the USA.

That is, you have no confirmation.

Unlike you, dear Andrey, I have confirmation. Below is an illustration demonstrating that air-to-air missiles with a range of over 300 km are today classified in the US as VLRAAM. And you, dear Andrey, clearly need to work on yourself, on your inability to defend your point of view with "proofs", and on your tendency to be rude to interlocutors who politely, using these very "proofs", demonstrate that you are mistaken in your opinion.

The only point that could give it meaning is precisely the reference to the official US classification.

Dear Andrey, did someone promise you an official classification of the USA? Just above you wanted: "But please provide a link to the "regular order" in the USA."
Do you understand the difference between "classification takes root by default" and an official document? If not, my sympathies. All the best.

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Oh my god... You suffered for two days to give birth... THIS

Quote: AlexanderA

Lying is certainly not good. It only remains to clarify, dear Andrey, did you lie about today's domestic lag behind the US in air-to-air missiles unwittingly, due to insufficient familiarity with the topic, or voluntarily, it turns out that with malicious intent?

Cite the place where I wrote about the domestic lag in air-to-air missile defense compared to the US.
In your polemical fervor, you are diligently making up your opponent's thoughts, because I did not write anything like that. All I did was show, using the example of a comparison with our CURRENT UAV, that the performance characteristics of the PROSPECTIVE American one are quite good. The fact that I allegedly postulated "domestic backwardness" is your personal fantasy, which you for some reason project onto me.

Quote: AlexanderA

If all those present still do not see from you references to American authors classifying the AIM-260A as an MRAAM, then I am absolutely right - you have elevated to an absolute the "far-fetched" personal classification of the AIM-260A as a medium-range air-to-air missile

You are absolutely right. Moreover, the fact that I am doing exactly this was clearly stated in my very first comment. Where I wrote in plain Russian that since the Americans do not classify this missile as either medium or long range, then we are left to do it ourselves, to the best of our understanding. And I repeated this simple thesis to you later. But, as usual, this simple and clear statement of mine got lost in your convolutions, which is why you have already reproached me for the THIRD COMMENT that I allegedly conceal what I write about completely openly.

Quote: AlexanderA

They have created a whole "theory" about today's domestic lag in air-to-air missiles compared to the USA.

Alexander:))))) Go to the doctor already. Your inability to understand basic text combined with delusional ideas (well, I never postulated domestic backwardness, this is your unhealthy fantasy) does not make you an interesting opponent.

Quote: AlexanderA

Unlike you, dear Andrey, I have confirmation. Below is an illustration demonstrating that air-to-air missiles with a range of over 300 km are today classified in the US as VLRAAM.

Everything would be fine, but to confirm your statement

Quote: AlexanderA

Today, the classification is being adopted by default: up to 200 km - medium-range air-to-air missiles, up to 300 km - long-range air-to-air missiles, over 300 km - ultra-long-range air-to-air missiles.

It is absolutely not enough for you to show a picture of unclear genesis, where only VLRAAM will be indicated