The AIM-120 'AMRAAM' - History, Design, Performance & Discussion

[tripod2008]

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.

[Faster_Boiiiii]

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

[sudo_su1]

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 …

Spoiler

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

[Gunjob]

@sudo_su1

A- What’s the date on it?

15th May 1992
Surrounding the purchase of AIM-120B for the Sea Harrier FA2 and Tornado F.3

[sudo_su1]

@Gunjob

Surrounding the purchase of AIM-120B for the Sea Harrier FA2 and Tornado F.3

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 …)

[Gunjob]

@sudo_su1

I.e. It’s not really a primary source.

My guy, its literally a primary source haha. We were already trialling them on FA2 in the states.

[sudo_su1]

@Gunjob

My guy, its literally a primary source haha.

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).

Spoiler

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)?

[Celestia]

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)

[sudo_su1]

@Celestia

Both sources are primary sources.

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.

@Gunjob @MiG_23M

[MiG_23M]

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.

[sudo_su1]

@Gunjob @MiG_23M

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

Spoiler

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

Spoiler

Also AIM-9L/M incorrect weight bug report soon ™ :)

[MiG_23M]

@sudo_su1

AMRAAM: Development Estimate

You’re looking at threshold values not tactical weight. The 345 number is the maximum weight given for the upgrade program, 327 lbs is the expected weight. There was a pre-planned product improvement program that led them to label the weight as “345 pounds” for all intents and purposes. This matters for load stores, weight, etc.

Another thing to note is the numbers for weight were still classified according to FOIA. The actual mass of the AMRAAM is not to be disclosed in any documentation unless they are using the public “345 lbs” range. You can’t FOIA the weight of any variant of the missile currently for these reasons.

Aside this - the test missiles that were produced prior to this document were already confirmed in documentation at 327 pounds. Where does the additional 18 pounds come from?

Another example is the Abrams; the maximum threshold weight is for potential upgrades and add-ons. The actual tactical weight is generally less. The threshold being reached is also the reason weight reduction programs are underway to find a way to meet the other criteria without exceeding the weight and providing more room for future improvements. AIM-120D exceeds the threshold weight - a total redesign was underwent and now we will receive the AIM-260 which is the “future proof” replacement.

[sudo_su1]

@MiG_23M

You’re looking at threshold values not tactical weight. The 345 number is the maximum weight given for the upgrade program, 327 lbs is the expected weight. There was a pre-planned product improvement program that led them to label the weight as “345 pounds” for all intents and purposes. This matters for load stores, weight, etc.

Another thing to note is the numbers for weight were still classified according to FOIA. The actual mass of the AMRAAM is not to be disclosed in any documentation unless they are using the public “345 lbs” range. You can’t FOIA the weight of any variant of the missile currently for these reasons.

You really want to die on that hill don’t you?

F-18C and F-18E’s manuals specify 348 lb for the “tactical weight” of the AIM-120A.

I’m sure they are lying to their pilots as well.
Only you know the correct number :)

[MiG_23M]

@sudo_su1

F-18C and F-18E’s manuals

These are intentionally wrong. It’s psyops. This is confirmed by other manuals and sources already.

This isn’t the first time either, misinformation about the AMRAAM being no more than 300 pounds was once pushed out; https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADP010957.pdf

I could always reference TO-34-16C (with permissions) from this Korean Study.

@sudo_su1

I’m sure they are lying to their pilots as well.

Of course not, that is why the legitimate manual is not publicly available on the internet.

Believe me when the tech mods have already very thoroughly investigated all of these sources you’ve posted thus far.

[sudo_su1]

New separate bug reports with new evidence (SAR FY 1991 and SAR FY 1993) and a dissection of the 1992 UK document that Gunjob had posted in the previous report:

AIM-120A/B incorrect warhead filler type:

https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/aAb8FexifAu7

AIM-120A/B incorrect total missile weight:

https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/8neWOIwbKGAr

@David_Bowie @Gunjob

[MiG_23M]

I think it is noteworthy that missiles such as the AIM-54 and AIM-120 are often modularly configured or upgraded with new parts. If the standard by 1995 changed to using specific parts - and discontinuing the use of old ones, we could expect the weight to increase as these parts are swapped out.

Missiles (like aircraft) cannot sit on a shelf. They need constant use and maintenance to ensure they operate properly. All military vehicles and ordnance are put through routine maintenance periods and often times this means routine upgrades are provided.

Ex; Older tank is upgraded with newer models turret drive as the older ones are no longer in production to ensure the fleet stays operationally ready.

[sudo_su1]

@MiG_23M

These are intentionally wrong. It’s psyops. This is confirmed by other manuals and sources already.

This isn’t the first time either, misinformation about the AMRAAM being no more than 300 pounds was once pushed out; https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADP010957.pdf

I don’t know if you really can’t understand this or you are just trying to troll …

Spoiler

It’s not saying that AMRAAM is no more than 300 pounds
It says AMRAAM was originally intended to be a light weight missile because F-16’s wing tip pylon couldn’t carry more than 300 pounds.
It’s essentially talking about how the launch platform’s constraints imposes limitation on missile design.

@MiG_23M

I could always reference TO-34-16C (with permissions) from this Korean Study .

Let us see “TO-34-16C” if you have it

[MiG_23M]

@sudo_su1

Let us see “TO-34-16C” if you have it

I linked the document and there are others there if you take the time to look.

@sudo_su1

I don’t know if you really can’t understand this or you are just trying to troll …

F-16 wingtip pylon weight limit is 300 pounds, why place a 345 pound missile? These documents are obviously skewing the data on purpose. You can’t tell that they’re obscuring the real numbers intentionally?

@sudo_su1

It’s essentially talking about how the launch platform’s constraints imposes limitation on missile design.

Did you forget the AMRAAM is supposedly 326-345 pounds?

We know the design limit for the AIM-120 was 350 pounds from the very start (1983), not 300, not 325, not 345.
https://sci-hub.ru/https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/abs/10.2514/6.1983-2684

This document states that the early development missiles were “two-thirds” the weight of the AIM-7M (510 lbs) - therefore, 341 pounds. We know this isn’t true because Hughes later makes the statement that the missiles’ tactical weight is 326 pounds. The British documents claim 327 pounds (AIM-120B?). The public numbers given in documentation are lies, fabricated to hide the truth and make the missile appear as though it is denser - or maybe longer distanced than it was to the Russians. It worked, they thought the AMRAAM had quite incredible range characteristics according to the data we can find.

[sudo_su1]

@MiG_23M

F-16 wingtip pylon weight limit is 300 pounds, why place a 345 pound missile? These documents are obviously skewing the data on purpose. You can’t tell that they’re obscuring the real numbers intentionally?

Original F-16A’s wing tip pylon’s limit was 300 pounds.

@MiG_23M

I linked the document and there are others there if you take the time to look.

No you did not, stop lying / trolling.
You linked the Korean study (which as far as I can see in the translated version does not even list the weight of the missile).

You did not link the “TO-34-16C”

BTW the correct name is “T.O. 1F-16C-34-1-1”
(Avionics and Nonnuclear Weapons Delivery Flight Manual)

So the Korean study couldn’t even get the name of the manual right :)

Link the “T.O. 1F-16C-34-1-1” if you have it

@MiG_23M

Did you forget the AMRAAM is supposedly 326-345 pounds?

We know the design limit for the AIM-120 was 350 pounds from the very start (1983), not 300, not 325, not 345.
https://sci-hub.ru/https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/abs/10.2514/6.1983-2684

Nobody is saying the design limit for AMRAAM was 300 pounds
Neither me nor the ADP010957
You just can’t read

It says: “For example, AMRAAM was originally developed as a light weight
radar missile for carriage on the wing tips of the F-16, which has a 300 pound weight limit.”

Spoiler

[sudo_su1]

@MiG_23M

We know this isn’t true because Hughes later makes the statement that the missiles’ tactical weight is 326 pounds.

Where

@MiG_23M

The British documents claim 327 pounds (AIM-120B?).

Already debunked:

https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/8neWOIwbKGAr
(Read section 6 in the report)

@MiG_23M

The public numbers given in documentation are lies, fabricated to hide the truth

LOL, that would be what you are doing right now :)