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
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:
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 …
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?
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 …
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, …”
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 :)
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.
There are multiple build standards over the years, that are more than the larger differences denoted by the A/B/C etc.
We discovered this with AIM-9L, I can give you three different missile weights for an AIM-9L, going from Jaguar → Tornado → Sea Harrier. Largely getting lighter as the manuals get newer.
Again, the redesigns took place before 1984 and Hughes is quoting 326 pounds in '86.
This was due to risk reduction efforts to reduce cost such as contracting multiple companies to produce parts for the missile that aren’t Hughes - and that takes time for companies to tool production facilities for.
Obviously isn’t clear, and how do you explain the 2018+ SAR reports quoting production baseline of 327 pounds?
Again, where does the additional weight come from? How did they have full scale produced missiles that were able to be launched and guided towards targets successfully prior to '86 (after the claimed redesigns) weighing at 327 pounds but suddenly had to gain weight before entering service? What does the weight gain come from? You’re not making sense.
Look at the dates of the manuals please, as stated earlier… these missiles go through regular maintenance intervals and newer modules are likely installed on older missiles over time.
The opposite is true in case of the AIM-120 interestingly, at least until the late 90s.
It is also possible they are discussing the AMRAAM w/ different additions. I noticed naval AMRAAM’s take off from the carrier with a cap on the rear end of the motor that is blasted off when it is ignited in some cases. There are different storage and maintenance kits depending on whether it is to be used on a carrier or on land.
Just a fun fact but the competitors to the AMRAAM from Hughes were actually wingless tail controlled body lift missiles with more advanced electronics and seekers than what Hughes was offering.
AMRAAM X1 underwent redesigns and by 1984 those redesigns were complete. They began IOT&E on the production capable missile - which Hughes claims was 326 pounds at the time.
The number is the original development estimate from the 80s
AMRAAM program is an ongoing program …
The number is 328 lb in the F-16 program and 327 lb in the AMRAAM program most likely because AMRAAM program started earlier than they started working on the F-16C (or at least earlier than the F-16 program started listing the stores or at least the AMRAAM for the F-16C in their SAR), so the development estimate of the 327 is the original one, but by the time the F-16 program had started asking for estimates of AMRAAM’s weight and listing it in their SAR, the estimate had increased to 328 lb already (so that’s the development estimate that the F-16 program lists).
Keep in mind that these two programs have different directors and teams managing them …
Just because some prototypes could guide towards the target does not mean their met the requirements.
They had to redesign the electronics which increased the weight and size, to be able to meet the requirements.
Doesn’t mean anything
Contractors often make fantastical claims and initial estimates just to get the contract … Just like Hughes did …
As I’ve explained here the increase in weight happened between FY 1985 and FY 1986.
You didn’t explain anything but show the 1986 estimate was 326 pounds.
I already showed you - the redesign occurred prior to this, and the missile began IOT&E.
As I stated earlier;
The base weight is 326 pounds, upgrades brought more weight until they peaked near the threshold of ~350 pounds but not until C models.
