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

[sudo_su1]

@MiG_23M

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 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?

@MiG_23M

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.

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:

Spoiler

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

Spoiler

@MiG_23M

I already shared Hughes’ data on your other bug report. The NATO SIXTEEN NATIONS report directly quoting Hughes for information on the AMRAAM.

LOL

You mean this?

Spoiler

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 …

Spoiler

@MiG_23M

The public propaganda numbers are still being used for AIM-120 production going into 2027;

Stop making fun of yourself …

[MiG_23M]

@sudo_su1

These are official government budget reports …

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.

@sudo_su1

If they don’t want the public to know any information in these reports they just redact it …

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.

@sudo_su1

are primary sources

Not for the AMRAAM they’re not. They DO NOT meet the definition of primary source. It’s a really basic concept.

@sudo_su1

This is merely a magazine

Quotes from Hughes are still quotes from Hughes. Hughes is a direct primary source of information.

[MiG_23M]

@sudo_su1

image1159×1497 243 KB

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?

[sudo_su1]

@MiG_23M

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.

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

[MiG_23M]

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.

[sudo_su1]

@MiG_23M

Quotes from Hughes are still quotes from Hughes. Hughes is a direct primary source of information.

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

[sudo_su1]

@MiG_23M

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?

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)

Spoiler

[MiG_23M]

@sudo_su1

1- This source is not from Hughes, the source mere claims “our correspondent said”

According to the museum it is directly from Hughes, this information was provided to Gaijin before the missile came to the game.

@sudo_su1

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 …

The production missile was already being fired from 1985. The production contract could not begin without examples already being built and completing IOT&E.

[sudo_su1]

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.

ADA240557 Tactical Missile Acquisitions Understated Technical Risks Leading to Cost and Schedule Overruns 1991 pages 12-13:

Spoiler

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, …”

Spoiler

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 :)

[sudo_su1]

@MiG_23M

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.

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:

Spoiler

https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/FOID/Reading%20Room/Selected_Acquisition_Reports/15-F-1687_FY1985_SARS.pdf

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:

Spoiler

https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/FOID/Reading%20Room/Selected_Acquisition_Reports/15-F-1687_FY1986_SARS.pdf

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.

[Fireball_2020]

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.

[Gunjob]

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.

[Flame2512]

Sea Harrier FA.2 manual lists AIM-120B as 331.9 lb / 150.5 kg. Just to add to the confusion.

[MiG_23M]

@sudo_su1

ADA240557 Tactical Missile Acquisitions Understated Technical Risks Leading to Cost and Schedule Overruns 1991 page 12-13994×1893 412 KB

Again, the redesigns took place before 1984 and Hughes is quoting 326 pounds in '86.

@sudo_su1

“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, …”

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.

@sudo_su1

as is very clear from the FY 1991 and 1993 DoD Selected Acquisition Reports.

Obviously isn’t clear, and how do you explain the 2018+ SAR reports quoting production baseline of 327 pounds?

@sudo_su1

Selected Acquisition Report (SAR) FY 1985 page 177

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.

@Fireball_2020

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.

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.

@Gunjob

Largely getting lighter as the manuals get newer.

The opposite is true in case of the AIM-120 interestingly, at least until the late 90s.

@Flame2512

Just to add to the confusion.

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.

[MiG_23M]

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.

[sudo_su1]

@MiG_23M

Obviously isn’t clear, and how do you explain the 2018+ SAR reports quoting production baseline of 327 pounds?

LOL

What part of it don’t you understand?

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 …

@MiG_23M

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.

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.

@MiG_23M

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.

Doesn’t mean anything
Contractors often make fantastical claims and initial estimates just to get the contract … Just like Hughes did …

@MiG_23M

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.

As I’ve explained here the increase in weight happened between FY 1985 and FY 1986.

[sudo_su1]

@Fireball_2020

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.

What’s the date on each of those manuals?

I suspect the earlier ones were written as the AMRAAM program was developing in the 80s and the weight was continuously increasing …

[MiG_23M]

@sudo_su1

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;

@MiG_23M

Again, the redesigns took place before 1984 and Hughes is quoting 326 pounds in '86.

@sudo_su1

I suspect the earlier ones were written as the AMRAAM program was developing in the 80s and the weight was continuously increasing …

The base weight is 326 pounds, upgrades brought more weight until they peaked near the threshold of ~350 pounds but not until C models.

[sudo_su1]

@MiG_23M

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;

Why are you f lying my dude?

Or do you not know how to read?

@MiG_23M

The base weight is 326 pounds, upgrades brought more weight until they peaked near the threshold of ~350 pounds but not until C models.

Stop it … Don’t waste our time

There was no C model in 1985/1986

ADA240557 makes it clear that they could not achieve the fantastic initial estimate.

Spoiler

[sudo_su1]

You can for example compare this with the AIM-54C (ECCM/SEALED) program which not only achieved its 1020 lb development estimate, but even continued to further reduce it with the demonstrated performance and current estimate being 1018 and 1014 lb respectively in SARs FY 1989 (The program is still present in SARs FY 1990 and SARS FY 1991 but the whole section is redacted in those reports):

Spoiler