The JULY 1984 SAR Report shows they put off (deferred) production of 154 missiles and discusses already well over 100 million in cost overruns. They were not using full-up rounds yet for IOT&E because of the redesigns and issues we now know about. This means that the first missiles used in IOT&E would be the aforementioned 326-328 pounds.
The slight additional weight (if added to base mass that remains after motor burnout) would actually aid it in keeping energy as it dives on targets post-loft.
Seeing as they already know the full-up weight of the C-5, propellant mass, and have charts for it… they really won’t be getting any changes based on the AIM-120A being +/- 18 pounds.
I don’t even know why I’m entertaining a troll who has already openly admitted to using an alt account.
Doesn’t matter
IOT&E starts with captive carry
And even when they do live fires it does not mean the said prototype has the same performance as the final product and meets the program requirements (In terms of range and ECCM and manufacturability and cost and many many other parameters that it has to meet)
We don’t have “AMRAAM 1983 Prototype” in the game … We have AIM-120A/B …
19 pounds as currently AIM-120A/B are 326 lb in the game.
If this change happens the weight after burnout will change from 101.33 kg to 109.95 kg.
Yes not a drastic change … But an inaccuracy nonetheless …
LOL
Lost the fact based argument, switched to ad hominem …
People already hide their in-game nickname on Youtube and Twitch videos for privacy reasons.
The game doesn’t (yet) allow you to hide your in-game nickname on the forums.
So what if I don’t want people to know my in-game nickname.
How does that change the validity of my arguments which are based on (tons of) evidence?
Certification verifies the final product and Milestone III is requesting production go-ahead. Doesn’t change anything, we have the correct AIM-120A weight in-game. Next slide.
AFAIK it does for staff.
I didn’t say that invalidated your argument at all. I just exasperated myself arguing with a brick wall that has time and time again that they are unwilling to admit they were wrong.
Why do you keep on lying
The certification happened in 1986 and Milestone III was reached in 1987
Weight estimate was updated between SAR FY 1985 and SAR FY 1986
So the weight in in SARs from 1986 to 1991 definitely refers to AIM-120A (It literally says AIM-120A in the headers and in program name).
In fact P3I program was initiated in FY 1990, the contract was awarded to Hughes in March 1991, and the critical design review was completed in Jan 1993:
That’s what I said, and since the re-design occurred in 1984 or earlier (the reason the missile procurement was deferred for those 154 rounds)… the official weight of the AIM-120A is ~326-328 pounds.
If there were changes after lot numbers 1-4 those would likely be what is being discussed as part of the P3I.
Typos are corrected over time, generally.
Seeing as the missile was intended to be upgraded over time from the very start - this comment of yours is ridiculous.
Can you please screenshot the source and its cover? You can PM me if you don’t want to share it here.
It’s possible that the British had modified their AMRAAMs … AFAIK they did so with the Sidewinders …
And even on the US side, the weight varies between AF and Navy manuals
F-16C manual lists 341 lb while F/A-18C and F/A-18E manuals list 348 lb.
It’s possible that the Navy AMRAAMs are slightly different due to the requirements of carrier operations.
But either way, at least for the US, 345 which is mentioned by many official DoD documents and many scientific studies is nicely right in between the F-16C manual’s 341 lb and F/A-18C and F/A-18E manuals’ 348 lb.
Weights differ by year of the manual as well in some cases - none of these manuals date to 1991 or earlier afaik. The AMRAAM (AIM-120A) weight in some manuals is actually 326-328 pounds as shown to you already. I ask again - where did the weight come from?
The redesign was complete prior to the 1985 SAR & yet the weights given are not removed from the document. This is because the actual weight isn’t listed and there is no need to redact incorrect information.
So obviously the information in that magazine is from before 1985 and reflects the fantastic initial development estimate that Hughes had cooked up to get the contract.
Why would they ever remove the weight?
The original development estimate weight of 327 lb is still there in the AMRAAM SAR 2018.
What matters is the “current estimate” which was updated in SAR FY 1986.
LOL
The actual weight is listed, and it’s called “current estimate”.
If you look at the AMRAAM’s weight in the F-16 program’s SAR, “Current estimate” is the measured weight of the missile on the ground.
“Demonstrated performance” is the weight of the missile that was also flight tested on the aircraft.
Initial development estimate was 300 pounds with a maximum threshold of 350
Wrong
They’d remove it if it was classified - as the weight of the AMRAAM is STILL classified. Yet it wasn’t redacted because the actual weight isn’t listed.
These are all 100% deep state ONI-USAFISR[NSA(CIA))/FBI]CIS(MIAMI division)HATO{MoDMi6)}DGSE backed deception psyops indoctrination propaganda misinformation figures because compartmentalization within government and international organizations absolutely does NOT exist and surely not any other kind of errors or slight differences you are not aware of.
AR 380-5 Section 3-Performance and Capabilities
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------
Classification Declassification or review
Remarks
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------
31. Missile
a. Altitude
(1) Maximum C DECL 10 Jun 92
(2) Minimum U
b. Range
(1) Maximum S OADR
""In excess of
10 km'' is
UNCLASSIFIED.
(2) Minimum U
c. Velocity C OADR
See Note 9.
d. Acceleration C OADR
See Note 9.
e. Maneuverability S DECL 10 Jun 92
Downgrade to
CONFIDENTIAL
upon IOC.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------
AR 380-5 Section 4-Specifications
(As suggested in DOD 5200.1-H, this section should address the
characteristics of the system and how it operates-not its
capabilities or level of performance, which should be covered in
Section 3. For example, for our imaginary XXXXX Missile System,
ranges, velocities, and acceleration are discussed in Section 3.
Details of rocket motor functioning, though, are included in this
section.)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------
Classification Declassification or review
Remarks
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------
40. Rocket motor
a. Size, weight, details of U
construction
b. Fuel
(1) Components of Mixture U
(2) Proportion of Components C DECL 3 May 93
in Mixture
c. Burn rate C DECL 3 May 93
d. Thrust Achieved C DECL 3 May 93
Thrust, stated
alone, is UN-
CLASSIFIED un-
less it is the
maximum achieved
in flight.
Thrust in terms
of time from ig-
nition or launch
is CONFIDENTIAL.
e. Fuel capacity, fuel load U
weight, and volume
(Physical characteristics such as size, weight, power output,
transportability, etc., should also be discussed here.)
