Another bug report:
AIM-120A/B incorrect total missile weight (Should be 342 lb / 155.129 kg) and warhead filler type:
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/c3Zavuod4L8o
Bug report:
Polymer Bonded Explosives TNT equivalence (Used in AIM-120A/B):
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/dV8HeuLy4P4g
2 Likes
israel uses aim-120s for a reason…
They should also order Meteor missiles if they’re not gonna get Aim-120D’s or Aim-260’s.
they recently got authorization for C-8s (and part of aircraft purchases). D-3s are only better due to improved software allowing for more efficient loft shaping or whatever the term is. they’re unlikely to get Meteor and also theres no integration for f-16, f-15 or f-35 yet but i would assume that they’ll get aim-260s.
or not, who knows. they dont really have a peer adversary to use those against
Even if they dont get Meteors they will surely get more advanced Aim-120’s, one thing for sure Usa will keep supply them against Middle East in order to keep their ally strong.
well they’re getting the c-8. imo the amraam line is ending here as there’s no need to develop an even longer ranged one when the d-3 already touches the min requirement for aim-260
Fair enough, i cant wait to see Aim-260 when it arrives.
There might still be an -120E in future, or otherwise a configuration for export / war requirement with a downrated seeker and / or guidance section mounted to the improved motor / warhead for clients like Ukraine where they absolutely need the improved performance but can’t / won’t be eligible to receive variants with better ECCM as a potential risk of releasing cutting edge examples to adversaries if they were to be recovered may cause issues with other client nation and cause further propagation of advanced systems which is something to be avoided as it eats into theoretical wartime performance reserves.
I though still think a modified AMRAAM-AXE (practically an air launched SL-AMRAAM)would be the way to go for them but unit cost would probably be an issue.
1 Like
you’re describing the C-8. its the D-3 but without the fancy shaping algorithms
or if thats too good then there’s the C-7
The British manual that you have posted:
A- What’s the date on it?
B- It clearly says it was designed to be 327 lb. “327 lb (Designed)”.
Not to mention that it doesn’t even specify any variant …
I.e. This is some generic weight that they were initially aiming for in the design process of the missile.
This is not the actual production weight that was actually realized for any particular variant.
If you look at US aircraft manuals, they all have AIM-120A listed at 348 lb:
https://community.gaijin.net/p/warthunder/i/c3Zavuod4L8o?comment=2Sy4bxZKtZnMAxSUOheBfuHR
Note that I’m not using these as source as I don’t know if they are declassified or not.
But I have provided two public primary sources and one secondary source:
1- “US Defense Logistics Agency Public Logistics Data”: 342 lb
(I don’t see how you can get more primary than this)
2- “ADA357045 Distributed Simulation Testing for Weapons System Performance of the FA-18 and AIM-120 AMRAAM 1998 LCDR Tom Watson Naval Weapons Test Squadron”: 345 lb
(People in charge of testing and simulating the weapon’s performance in 1998 got the weight wrong! right?!)
3- “Encyclopedia of Modern U.S. Military Weapons 1995 COLONEL TIMOTHY M. LAUR AND STEVEN L. LLANSO Edited by Walter J. Boyne”: 345 lb
These are primary sources from the US (which actually makes the missile) whereas the undated UK document that doesn’t even specify the variant is clearly not as it explicitly mentions that the 327 lb is what the missile was initially intended to be in the design process, and not the actual weight of missile that was actualized in reality.
It’s also possible that the 327 was the propaganda/fake figure which was given to magazines etc, as magazines in 1985 and before (before the missile actually went into production) all use that figure: https://community.gaijin.net/p/warthunder/i/c3Zavuod4L8o?comment=xaNLwmEChsaYsMAXSVfHwob7
Regarding this report: https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/c3Zavuod4L8o
I.e. It’s not really a primary source.
I gave you two primary sources from the US and one secondary.
(And there are countless US aircraft manuals that … Well you know what I mean …)
My guy, its literally a primary source haha. We were already trialling them on FA2 in the states.
1 Like
When did UK start using AIM-120B? 1995?
How is a document from 1992 a primary source then?
Not to mention that this won’t even apply to AIM-120A.
And in 1992 AIM-120B was not in production yet (it went into production in 1994).
I.e. when the document explicitly says “327 lbs (Designed)” it means what the designers are aiming AIM-120B to be (which was not actualized).
What’s your response to my primary sources from the US which actually makes the missile (and was operating it at the time of writing those, unlike UK in 1992)?
Both sources are primary sources.
You now have to wrestle in a mud pit naked surounded by flurescant pink lamas and judged by Michelle Obama, Eminem and the koolaid jug character from Family Guy. (Presumed to be gaijins main method for choosing between conflicting sources)
5 Likes
Not really
The 1992 UK document is before the UK started using AMRAAMs (1995) and even before the missile (AIM-120B) had even existed in its finalized form and went into production (1994).
It very clearly is not a primary source.
None of them are primary sources except for Hughes.
Hughes information about AIM-120 states 326 pounds. The design goal for the AIM-120B was no more than 327 pounds, I suppose they probably achieved this. The AIM-120C-5 has a larger motor, redesigned rear control section. The weight & center of gravity likely shifted and it is then that the weight increased to 341+ pounds.
Any manuals citing the weight of AMRAAM got it from another source. If they were declassified and state 327 pounds as the British one does - then we know it is 327 pounds. If you are discussing public data like in the case of “US Defense Logistics Agency Public Logistics Data”, you are going to get the generic unclassified publicity numbers.
ADA357045 states a generic 345 pounds. At this time the generic “range” given for the missile was also “More than 20 nm” or sometimes “More than 30 nm”. It wasn’t until recently that they admitted the range was “more than 40 nm”… and as we know thanks to the sources provided by @Flame2512 and @Gunjob the true maximum range is beyond 60 nm. I had already theorized this based on the thrust and performance data available prior to their sources - but I needed proof. Mostly hinged on finding a source for battery life which I think we still haven’t found? I think Gaijin has just used what they thought was reasonable.
Regarding the encyclopedia;
Again, not a single one of those was a primary source. I don’t see any of the people who made the AMRAAM listed as authors either, so the encyclopedia is a tertiary source that itself doesn’t list its’ references. It’s worthless.
Hughes directly - and all subsequently declassified manuals state that the AIM-120A/B are around 326-327 pounds.
Selected Acquisition Report (SAR) FY 1991 pages 135, 137 & 807 :
https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/FOID/Reading%20Room/Selected_Acquisition_Reports/15-F-1687_FY1991_SARS.pdf
AMRAAM: Development Estimate: 328 lb, Demonstrated Performance: 344 lb, Current Estimate (I.e. for finalized production missile): 345 lb
Selected Acquisition Report (SAR) FY 1993 pages 92 & 95:
https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/FOID/Reading%20Room/Selected_Acquisition_Reports/15-F-1687_FY1993_SARS.pdf
AMRAAM: Development Estimate: 328 lb, Demonstrated Performance: 345 lb, Current Estimate (I.e. for finalized production missile): 345 lb
Also AIM-9L/M incorrect weight bug report soon ™ :)