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
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.
I don’t know if you really can’t understand this or you are just trying to troll …
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.
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.
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?
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.
Original F-16A’s wing tip pylon’s limit was 300 pounds.
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
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.”
Where
Already debunked:
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/8neWOIwbKGAr
(Read section 6 in the report)
LOL, that would be what you are doing right now :)
Not for the Korean document.
You’re gonna argue again like you did for I-HAWK impulse and thrust?
You’re trying to tell the story but you don’t have all the puzzle pieces and the conclusions are based on a keyhole perspective of what you’re reading. Stop making these reports before consulting the forum and present your evidence prior to making more “not a bug” results.
Please screenshot where the weight of the missile is mentioned in the Korean study or in “TO-34-16C”
It’s easy to make baseless claims and post random links …
In fact I have all the puzzle pieces I need
I have multiple official primary sources that specify the weight of the missile
What do you have?
A 1992 UK document with design projections of what the weight of a missile that is going to be finalized and put into production 2 years into the feature and into UK service 3 years into the future will be?
You keep talking about “What Hughes says What Hughes says”
Why don’t you link it?
Let us see and inspect the document
Do you expect us to take your word for it?
There was another attached study but you need to pay to view these, cannot post them here. Just check that site, there are lots of good information there that you will be able to use to expand your keyhole vision of the world.
You actually don’t have a single primary source, I don’t know how it is so hard to understand that the manufacturer or person testing the ordnance is primary - manuals and other sources citing this data are secondary by nature.
The 1983 document states the missiles’ design weight goal was 350 pounds.
The 1992 UK document states the expected weight of the missile (presumably AIM-120B) will be, which is almost identical to the weight as stated by Hughes in 1985. I already shared Hughes’ data on your other bug report. The NATO SIXTEEN NATIONS report directly quoting Hughes for information on the AMRAAM.
No, that is why everything stated was linked. Why are you still going on and on about “primary sources” when only one has ever been posted?
The public propaganda numbers are still being used for AIM-120 production going into 2027;
See this document from 2018 saying the same exact weights. It states the initial production baseline is 326 pounds (AIM-120A), demonstrating current weights of around 344 pounds and a threshold of 350 pounds. As I stated previously, they knew what the maximum limit should be and tested aircraft up to that limit for stores and loading purposes so they could entertain the idea of product improvement over time with a maximum weight limit of 350 pounds.
You just keep saying “there are good information there are studies”
What’s the name of the study you are referring to?
If you have the study, screenshot the weight
If you don’t, then how the f do you know it specifies the weight to be what you are claiming?
LOL
1- Official DoD SAR are primary sources.
They can’t falsify these reports for “PSYOP” like you are claiming … These are official government budget reports … They will end up in prison if they falsify these reports …
And if you actually look at the SARs that I have linked above, you see that they have a lot of redacted parts … If they don’t want the public to know any information in these reports they just redact it …
E.g. like they do in the FY 1991 SARs for the PATRIOT SAM:
2- You talk about “person testing the ordinance”
Yet, you are not the one who has based your claim on documents from “person testing the ordinance”
I have actually linked a document from “person testing the ordinance” in my report:
https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA355385.pdf
LOL
You mean this?
This is merely a magazine (Read: secondary source) from 1985 or before …
Note that it says:
“Our correspondent describes the weapon system which, beginning in 1986, will replace the AIM-7 Sparrow missile with the united states Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps, …”
It also says “In Europe, the weapon will equip the RAF’s TORNADO F.2 ADVs and …”
It’s total and utter trash …
Nothing it says matches reality …
And it’s from 1985 or before … When I’m using actual sources from 1991 and 1993 …
Stop making fun of yourself …
Then why do they incorrectly state information pertaining to missile weight? It shows baseline production (327 pounds) and projected 344 pounds production going on from what, 1993+? These are for pre-planned product improvement variations. Production baseline is that… the first production baseline. It’s 327 pounds.
There are 18 and 19 year olds working for less than minimum wage often redacting this information. Literally. Errors are bountiful. You could FOIA Outsider’s view and get half the document next week if you wanted - even though other FOIA requests have received the document in FULL.
Not for the AMRAAM they’re not. They DO NOT meet the definition of primary source. It’s a really basic concept.
Quotes from Hughes are still quotes from Hughes. Hughes is a direct primary source of information.
Btw you’re gonna highlight this but ignore IOT&E was started in '83, Hughes quote from '86 states missile weighs 326 pounds. So where does the additional weight come from thereafter? They just decide to put lead weights in the missile for production?
327 lb was the initial “development estimate”.
It turned out to be underestimated:
https://forum.warthunder.com/t/the-aim-120-amraam-history-design-performance-discussion/2584/1108
Again, where does the additional weight come from? The SAR baseline production estimate is 327. This means that missiles produced after 2018 cannot be less than the initial production weight of 327 pounds. This is how that is measured.
1- This source is not from Hughes, the source merely claims “our correspondent said”
It doesn’t even say who the “Correspondent” is.
This is merely a magazine …
2- And even if it was an actual document from Hughes it would still be worth nothing as it’s from 1985 or before and we know that Hughes had initially underestimated how much the missile would weigh …
https://forum.warthunder.com/t/the-aim-120-amraam-history-design-performance-discussion/2584/1108
What are you on about
Initial low rate production deliveries didn’t start until Sep 1988
How did they operationally evaluate the missile before it was made and delivered?
The milestone you are looking at in Oct 1983 is for development prototypes …
“DT&E” (Developmental Test and Evaluation)
According to the museum it is directly from Hughes, this information was provided to Gaijin before the missile came to the game.
The production missile was already being fired from 1985. The production contract could not begin without examples already being built and completing IOT&E.
It’s very clear that the program could not meet the initial development estimate of 328 lb.
The initial development estimate was low balled due to an overestimation of available electronic technology and how compact the seeker and guidance section could be made.
Note how the initial IOC estimate of 1986 matches what was claimed in the 1985-or-before (you didn’t give me the exact date or the cover page) magazine that you posted, which says:
“Our correspondent describes the weapon system which, beginning in 1986, will replace the AIM-7 Sparrow missile with the united states Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps, …”
Again, it does not claim that “Our correspondent” is someone from Hughes, but even if it is, it doesn’t matter … They are talking about fantastic initial estimates, that were never achieved, as is very clear from the FY 1991 and 1993 DoD Selected Acquisition Reports.
They just initially low balled weight, cost and schedule, as is very common with companies trying to get contracts …
Also your claims that all these official government and DoD documents dated 1991 to 1998 are falsified and PSYOP trying to fool the Russians, but some random magazine from 1985 or before, when the missile’s development hadn’t even been completed yet, which also claims that it will be installed on Tornado F.2 and it will start replacing AIM-7 in US service in 1986 (while in reality it started replacing it 5 years later, from 1991), has the true weight, are quite funny :)
The initial “development estimate” and initial “approved program” weight was 328 lb.
“Current Estimate” was 328 lb in SAR FY 1985:
Selected Acquisition Report (SAR) FY 1985 page 177:
But since SAR FY 1986, after realizing that the initial development estimate and approved program weight of 328 could not be achieved with the available electronic technology, the “Current Estimate” was revised to 345 lb:
Selected Acquisition Report (SAR) FY 1986 pages 169-170:
Also the Selected Acquisition Report (SAR) FY 1989 page 706 is very interesting:
In this year’s report, instead of redacting almost the whole page like later years’ SARs, they did not redact the name of the parameters and only redacted the values.
So if any of you Americans could file a FOIA request for this page from SAR FY 1989 and the same section from later years’ SARs, it would be quite helpful and interesting source of information.
All the early stuff(and thus the 120A) states 326lb, 120B is stated as 341lb in the F-16C manual, likely due to denser electronics. Then again 120A is 338lb in the F-15C manual. And F-18C has it at 347lb for both. So there is discrepancy between all sources.
