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
1 Like
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)
1 Like
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 :)
2 Likes
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
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
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.
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.
2 Likes
Sea Harrier FA.2 manual lists AIM-120B as 331.9 lb / 150.5 kg. Just to add to the confusion.
1 Like
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.
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 …
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.
2 Likes
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 …
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.
Why are you f lying my dude?
Or do you not know how to read?
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.
2 Likes
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):
Who is lying?
The manuals state less than 345 pounds for the F-16’s AIM-120A as you now claim?
This source is from 1991 and clearly states that the redesign occurred prior to the claim of 326 pounds from Hughes and the other manuals.
You’re chasing some stupid number as though it has any effect on gameplay. Let’s assume they fix the weight - they must also adjust the missile to match the performance figures once again. You’re literally accomplishing nothing with this report in the first place. This entire argument is the same as the I-HAWK thrust argument. You’re wrong, won’t admit it, and the entire thing is a waste of time to begin with.
You’ve completely dismissed any source that doesn’t agree with your stance.
Why do you just talk?
Why don’t you post your sources?
Every claim I make, I screenshot and link the source
But you keep saying “Hughes said, Koreans say, manuals say, my uncle says …”
Screenshot your source where it makes the claim and also its cover & changes pages.
Where is this 326 lb claim by Hughes
What’s the source
Let us see it
You just keep repeating your claim without screenshotting or linking your source
Let us see the source and its date & changes page if there is any
LOL
Now that you have ran out of arguments, you start questioning my motive …
Of course it will change the missile’s behavior …
I never said I’m trying to nerf the range or some other metric, did I?
Why should I admit your baseless claims when you just talk without evidence?
You keep repeating “Hughes said 326 lb Hughes said 326” without screenshotting your source and its cover page
Earlier you were telling me to read Korean studies “because there are some good information there”
I asked you to name the specific study that mentions the weight and screenshot it if you actually have it (otherwise how would you know that it has the weight or other good information?)
You didn’t mention a word about Korean studies anymore since I asked you to post a screenshot …
Who’s talking based on evidence and is providing the said evidence and who keeps floating baseless claims around?
2 Likes
Here is the 1991 source
Here is the source from Hughes for the NATO series
(you yourself having reposted it)
https://community.gaijin.net/p/warthunder/i/c3Zavuod4L8o?comment=xaNLwmEChsaYsMAXSVfHwob7
Everything I have discussed that is permissible for sharing on the forum has been linked at least once already. Repeatedly linking things for your convenience when you’re just going to continue dismissing them is not worth my time. You won’t even acknowledge how stupid your argument is in the first place. Let’s take a step back and evaluate all of the different sources and claims.
What you can see is the MOST CONSISTENT is that the manuals very clearly differ in weight from what you say the SAR reports are claiming.