Was already posted. Keep up now.
Not a magazine, also yes.
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.
That’s totally irrelevant.
So not tactical weight?
Where does it say this?
1993
1998
2006
1998
after 1996
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.
They’re wrong, that’s obvious
Well let me add one to the mix:
2003:
In my experience generally the Navy listings are heavier than the AF ones.
You still never answered;
Where does the additional weight come from?
AR 380-5 Appendix G Security Classification Guide Preparation:
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.)
…
The extra weight wont change anything as the drag and thrust variables would be changed to continue matching the known engagement distances and time to targets.
I never said there will be a drastic change.
But it will change the missile’s “behavior” … This could even be a buff …
You still didn’t explain anything and used an old version of outsider’s view that is still highly redacted. Speak plainly. What are you trying to say?
All you did was repost a bunch of stuff that is irrelevant to the question.
You don’t know what it would affect?
Missile weights are usually not classified
Because you have to let a lot of people throughout your logistics chain and ground crew know about it anyways … Also not very useful information for the enemy without knowing the motor thrust.
They were in the case of the AIM-54, and it is one of the parameters specified in the Outsider’s view document. That still does not answer any of my questions whatsoever or justify your absurd claims.
The ground crews generally carry a secret clearance, I do not see why the weight would need to be declassified for that. Even people loading and unloading cargo aircraft generally carry a secret clearance or are required to follow military law in regards to operational security measures and cannot release or discuss classified information.
Again, you fail to read:
“Weight information is unclassified” (And not even “declassified”, but “unclassified”)
You failed to read, I stated “were”. Please don’t get sassy if it’s just going to result in further irony.
That is the point of the article. Such things were wishy washy and they needed to standardize methods of containing that information properly. Did you read the entire document?
What matters is that the missile weights are usually unclassified.
So your theory that all the DoD official documents and studies that state the missile’s weight are “PSYOP” is wrong (if not laughable).
That isn’t the case.
You continue to push that I said all the studies are psyop, I only stated that certain F-18 manuals were intentionally released with false information as a psyop.
Here is another spanner to be thrown in, AMRAAM is tuned to British data provided by the US and Hughes from the same documents that give the 327lb figure. So unless you’ve got more LSZ charts it’s not changing. As it’s tuned to that specific ~1992 version. Otherwise we’d be mixing different build standards with the wrong charts.
There are a few possibilities:
1- The charts are also calculated based on the initial development estimate and are unrealistic.
2- The charts are calculated based on updated information, but only that particular page with the weight which is mostly talking about AMRAAM project requirements and also says “327 lbs (designed)” is using information from another older document based on the initial development estimate.
3- The British AIM-120Bs are just built differently (see below).
@MiG_23M Seems like there was more (recent) changes than just seeker and guidance system.
In AMRAAM program’s SAR FY 1987 the “current estimate” was 335 lb with no “demonstrated performance”:
AMRAAM SAR FY 1988 was the first report to specify a “demonstrated performance” weight.
In AMRAAM SAR FY 1988 and SAR FY 1989 the “current estimate” was 335 lb with a “demonstrated performance” of 342 lb:
However, there was another change in current weight estimate in AMRAAM SAR FY 1990.
The whole “Performance Characteristics” section was redacted in SAR FY 1990 so we can’t see the weight estimates, but the reason for the change of weight estimates is not redacted, stating: “Missile weight increased due to a change in materials”:
Note that it’s erroneously included in the “Previous change explanations” section, even though the change was first made in AMRAAM SAR FY 1990 (this explanation nor any weight changes were present in the SAR FY 1989), so it should’ve been in the “Current Change Explanations” section.
The next year, in AMRAAM SAR FY 1991, the government employee doesn’t go overboard and doesn’t classify the whole “Performance Characteristics” section and leaves out the weight estimates. Here, compared to SAR FY 1988 & 1989, the “current estimate” for weight has changed from 335 to 345 lb, and the “demonstrated performance” has changed from 342 to 344 lb:
In AMRAAM SAR FY 1992 & 1993, again the nice lady working in the DoD redacts the whole “Performance Characteristics” section, so we can’t see the weight estimates (but we know there is no weight reduction, as the explanation for weight increase due to change in materials is still there, and there is no other weight change explanations to suggest a reduction):
But F-16 SAR FY 1993, which is also the first F-16 SAR to list a demonstrated performance for F-16C AMRAAM weight, lists “demonstrated performance” at 345 lb:
This would explain why the British manuals list AIM-120B at a lower weight compared to the weight listed for AIM-120A/B in the US aircraft manuals.
I.e. difference in the materials used, most likely to save cost. (US needed a lot more missiles than the British, and the program already had massive cost overruns)
This also explains the weight difference between the weight of AIM-120B in the F-16C manuals for the Hellenic Air Force (341 lb) and USN manuals (348 lb). Different materials.
I don’t think “different materials” explains anything, only complicates the matter and the weight is still too much. More than 330 pounds is not realistic for AIM-120A.
